When i was modeling about 3 years ago, I had just started in the industry and had little to no experience.
I TFP'd a photographer to take some photos of me.
NO MODEL RELEASE WAS SIGNED. he was a friend of mine, and i wasn't aware at the time what releases covered.
now...2 years ago, we did a shoot, and the photos turned out great! needed little retouching, we BOTH stuck them all over MM and our facebooks.
2 years later, i see them edited in a distasteful way that was not appealing.
Now...when i tried to contact the photographer and ask for the photos (the "edited") photos to be taken down, or reedited in a different way, he then told me to take EVERY PHOTO we have ever shot off of my website, MM and facebook.
He said he has copyright on those photos, he can edit and use them ANYWAY he wants, and i was shit out of luck..
now before this...i had an excellent letter of recommendation from him, i never showed up late, always brought clothes and extra makeup and worked with him hours until he got the "shots he needed" and shots that i wanted to use.
Other photographers have told me that they will remove a photo if models do NOT like them,,,however he did not.
And he went on to state that ALL photos we had shot (we had about 10 photoshoots in 3 years) I had to take down and never use, but that he can use them in anyway he wants because he "took the shot".
again, no model release was signed, no photos are being "bought" or "sold" but he told me he can sue me if he sees "his photos" anywhere on my portfolio.
So the question is...what rights do i have as a model to photos with no model release, and a verbal agreement???
I love the past shots we have taken, and the reason he freaked out on me is because i didn't like the "edgy" edits he did, that made me look like a drug addict, and not a professional model.
When i asked other photographers i had worked with what THEY thought of the "new edited photos" they all agreed that they did NOT represent me well at all, and they understood why i was upset.
Some photographers say that I do have rights even though i never signed a release and never had him sign one, however the photographer in question is saying that I have NO rights to anything and he is able to use them however he wants, and im the dumb one for not signing a release.
Basically, you can revoke his rights to display your likeness, and you must remove all of your pictures as he owns the copyright.
Lose/Lose?
Edit again:
You don't need to revoke, you never gave him permission to use your likeness in the first place. But both of you will have a hard uphill battle lawyer wise.
First, he's being rude and that's too bad. The best thing to do is walk away.
He's probably right in that he has copyright on the images. If he's not defaming you in some way he can post them for non-commercial use - like using them in his MM profile. You could help write NEW copyright law in this area by claiming it was commercial advertising - but that would be VERY expensive ($100k+) but intersting to the rest of us!
A release would not have changed this. The release grants him rights - not you. You would need a copyright release from HIM or a contract that in consideration for you doing TFP you get images, etc. Most people don't do a TFP contract - not sure I'd sign one - but most photographer don't act like d*icks, either.
Call it water under the bridge and find someone else to work with.
Since you did not sign a release, you never released your rights to the photos to him.
(whatever your rights may be, consult a lawyer... if it's not worth the $ to consult a lawyer, it's worth just forgetting about and letting it go.)
Faith Bombshell Tyler wrote: When i was modeling about 3 years ago, I had just started in the industry and had little to no experience.
I TFP'd a photographer to take some photos of me.
NO MODEL RELEASE WAS SIGNED. he was a friend of mine, and i wasn't aware at the time what releases covered.
now...2 years ago, we did a shoot, and the photos turned out great! needed little retouching, we BOTH stuck them all over MM and our facebooks.
2 years later, i see them edited in a distasteful way that was not appealing.
Now...when i tried to contact the photographer and ask for the photos (the "edited") photos to be taken down, or reedited in a different way, he then told me to take EVERY PHOTO we have ever shot off of my website, MM and facebook.
He said he has copyright on those photos, he can edit and use them ANYWAY he wants, and i was shit out of luck..
now before this...i had an excellent letter of recommendation from him, i never showed up late, always brought clothes and extra makeup and worked with him hours until he got the "shots he needed" and shots that i wanted to use.
Other photographers have told me that they will remove a photo if models do NOT like them,,,however he did not.
And he went on to state that ALL photos we had shot (we had about 10 photoshoots in 3 years) I had to take down and never use, but that he can use them in anyway he wants because he "took the shot".
again, no model release was signed, no photos are being "bought" or "sold" but he told me he can sue me if he sees "his photos" anywhere on my portfolio.
So the question is...what rights do i have as a model to photos with no model release, and a verbal agreement???
I love the past shots we have taken, and the reason he freaked out on me is because i didn't like the "edgy" edits he did, that made me look like a drug addict, and not a professional model.
When i asked other photographers i had worked with what THEY thought of the "new edited photos" they all agreed that they did NOT represent me well at all, and they understood why i was upset.
Some photographers say that I do have rights even though i never signed a release and never had him sign one, however the photographer in question is saying that I have NO rights to anything and he is able to use them however he wants, and im the dumb one for not signing a release.
PLEASE HELP! lol
maybe you shouldn't have asked him to take down the work. Most people don't go from 0-120 in two second flat, I am guessing your letter to him was enough to really set him off.
ALL the photos don't have to represent you well, that is bullcrap. If you received images from the shoot that is all a photographer is responsible for. The photographer has no obligation, implied or otherwise, to curb their usage of the images to flattering likenesses of the model.
In Texas you must prove commercial usage, which IS NOT the same as making money off of a photograph. I make money off editorial images, and that is not a commercial usage.
If you want to keep using the images you can use emails from before this to try and establish a limited implied usage license. Meaning if he said he was trading you images for use in your portfolio he can't revoke that usage license now, even though he is mad. But neither can you. If you agreed to the session, then you can't later decide only some of the images are ok to use.
You should write him a letter of apology and not work with him again.
Next time you need images for your portfolio pay a professional and have a firm usage agreement in writing before paying them.
no he seriously went 0-120 in 2.5. I can send the messages if needed to get a better understanding of what happened.
these are over THREE photos, A lot of photographers and models (after i shot with this peticular photographer) told me he is not a good photog and has had problems with models and has bad letters from a lot of people. hindsight being 20/20? haha
i dont care if he takes them off the site or not, if thats how he wants to represent his work, thats fine. But does he have rights to tell me I cannot use them either?
i can also show a before and after, if needed to give a better understanding of what he DID to the photo...my arms are distorted, my complexion is sick looking, i do honestly think he did this meliciously, but i dont understand why?
The photos we shot were originally minor edited, little touchups here and there, and WOOOOOW he made them look....crazy, lets just say.
Okay, so he can edit them how he wants? He made a threat saying "I can do ANYTHING" and i mean ANYTHING to your photos because i own them!!"
I'm not an attorney, so the following is just my opinion.
1. As the photographer, he owns the copyright to the images.
2. Without a model release, he can't use them commercially in any way. He can't even enter them into contests.
3. Keep what you have. As others stated, he'd have to pay a lot of money in attorney's fees and court costs to force you to remove them and, if there's been no direct monetary gain for you, the likelihood of you being ordered to pay any restitution (including his legal fees) is nil.
4. You can spend a lot of money trying to force him to remove the photos you don't like, but is it worth it?
5. Probably the best you can do is to ask him to remove your name from the photos.
6. Chalk it all up to a learning experience.
Don't stress out so much. He is at the "pounding his chest" stage. You can talk to a laywer, but I wouldn't worry about it too much. Do you seriously expect him to sue you, and would he actually win?
291
Posts: 11,911
SEQUOIA NATIONAL PARK, California, US
i'm failing to see the problem here. a release isn't the issue, it's consent and you gave it. that's what a release is and whether in written form or not with you both splattering images across the 'net, well, you stepped in it.
go do better work and don't worry about your rear-view mirror. let this be a lesson in what happens when playing let's take pictures without understanding consequence.
all this talk of law in this thread. there isn't a case other than what a starving lawyer might take...and that's why they are starving.
your only light of day here is bitching about it on the forums.
I am not a lawyer, and I've never stayed at a Holiday Inn Express.
Yes, in the US, the photographer owns the copyrights (except in a few narrowly-defined situations that don't seem to apply here). That's federal law, and it does not vary from state to state.
As the model, your likeness cannot be used commercially without your signing a release. That's covered by state law, and exactly what uses of your likeness require a release varies from state to state. In some states portfolio use is considered commercial. In others it's not.
There's an old legal adage that goes something like this. If the law is against you, pound the facts. If the facts are against you, pound the law. If both are against you, pound the table.
It would take someone with knowledge of Texas law to tell you whose side the law is on. Whose side the facts are on depends on whether you can establish the content of your verbal agreement.
But if nobody's going to court, it doesn't matter. He's pounding the table.
Faith Bombshell Tyler wrote: Well he did threaten to sue me if i didn't take them down, thats what the main worry was about.
It sounds like he was threatening that as retaliation for you demanding he took down the ones that offended you. I doubt you'll get anywhere with him - it sounds like the time for reasonable conversation has passed. Personally, I think he sounds like a jerk and I think you'll just need to let it go. He does by default own copyright but I think most people would agree that for a TFCD shoot where he has provided you the images, you are within your rights to continue using them for non-commercial use. (But I'm no lawyer).
But lessons learned ... unless you really know the photographer well, get something in writing. Make sure you know what your usage rights are - and if a photographer doesn't have some sort of written agreement you can both sign - ask him to put the basics in writing (even an email would be better than verbal). Ask if you have the rights to ask him not to use an image you consider derogatory to you - a decent photographer should at least be willing to discuss how you'd deal with that.
But it seems this wasn't a decent photographer unfortunately.
If I was you, I'd say to heck with him and if he is gonna be such a jerk, don't give him any extra attention by including his images in your portfolio anymore.
However, if your big concern really was that you didn't like how he was using the images, you might leave the images up as part of your leverage/negotiating position.
Since you did trade shoots with him, part of that trade is contingent on you receiving images that you're allowed to use. If he thinks he can revoke your right to use the images, then what did you receive in terms of compensation from the shoot? Sounds like nothing.
If he does not have a written release from you, and you have received no compensation from the shoot (due to him rescinding your permission to use the images) it sounds like you are the person who might have grounds for a law suit, and at a far less costly scenario, as you could sue him in small claims court while if he thinks he can sue you over Copyright, that would be in Federal court ($$$) and what would he think he can get out of you as his damages?
The whole thing sounds utterly idiotic on his part.
I would suggest that you'd be better off with both of you agreeing in writing that both of you will no longer use the images you created, and mutually part ways.
Otherwise, if he claims you don't have the right to use the images, he would be breaching the TFP agreement you had with him.
I am not sure what the case law is on this, but if he breached the contract, and has nothing in writing from you saying you've granted him the rights to use your likeness, it sounds like he should be treading on potentially riskier ground for being sued than you would be.
I'd say leave him in your dust and create far better images as the best revenge.
Faith Bombshell Tyler wrote: When i was modeling about 3 years ago, I had just started in the industry and had little to no experience.
I TFP'd a photographer to take some photos of me.
NO MODEL RELEASE WAS SIGNED. he was a friend of mine, and i wasn't aware at the time what releases covered.
now...2 years ago, we did a shoot, and the photos turned out great! needed little retouching, we BOTH stuck them all over MM and our facebooks.
2 years later, i see them edited in a distasteful way that was not appealing.
Now...when i tried to contact the photographer and ask for the photos (the "edited") photos to be taken down, or reedited in a different way, he then told me to take EVERY PHOTO we have ever shot off of my website, MM and facebook.
He said he has copyright on those photos, he can edit and use them ANYWAY he wants, and i was shit out of luck..
now before this...i had an excellent letter of recommendation from him, i never showed up late, always brought clothes and extra makeup and worked with him hours until he got the "shots he needed" and shots that i wanted to use.
Other photographers have told me that they will remove a photo if models do NOT like them,,,however he did not.
And he went on to state that ALL photos we had shot (we had about 10 photoshoots in 3 years) I had to take down and never use, but that he can use them in anyway he wants because he "took the shot".
again, no model release was signed, no photos are being "bought" or "sold" but he told me he can sue me if he sees "his photos" anywhere on my portfolio.
So the question is...what rights do i have as a model to photos with no model release, and a verbal agreement???
I love the past shots we have taken, and the reason he freaked out on me is because i didn't like the "edgy" edits he did, that made me look like a drug addict, and not a professional model.
When i asked other photographers i had worked with what THEY thought of the "new edited photos" they all agreed that they did NOT represent me well at all, and they understood why i was upset.
Some photographers say that I do have rights even though i never signed a release and never had him sign one, however the photographer in question is saying that I have NO rights to anything and he is able to use them however he wants, and im the dumb one for not signing a release.
PLEASE HELP! lol
rights of publicity/privacy vary from state to state, so check with a lawyer.
Faith Bombshell Tyler wrote: When i was modeling about 3 years ago, I had just started in the industry and had little to no experience.
I TFP'd a photographer to take some photos of me.
NO MODEL RELEASE WAS SIGNED. he was a friend of mine, and i wasn't aware at the time what releases covered.
now...2 years ago, we did a shoot, and the photos turned out great! needed little retouching, we BOTH stuck them all over MM and our facebooks.
2 years later, i see them edited in a distasteful way that was not appealing.
Now...when i tried to contact the photographer and ask for the photos (the "edited") photos to be taken down, or reedited in a different way, he then told me to take EVERY PHOTO we have ever shot off of my website, MM and facebook.
He said he has copyright on those photos, he can edit and use them ANYWAY he wants, and i was shit out of luck..
now before this...i had an excellent letter of recommendation from him, i never showed up late, always brought clothes and extra makeup and worked with him hours until he got the "shots he needed" and shots that i wanted to use.
Other photographers have told me that they will remove a photo if models do NOT like them,,,however he did not.
And he went on to state that ALL photos we had shot (we had about 10 photoshoots in 3 years) I had to take down and never use, but that he can use them in anyway he wants because he "took the shot".
again, no model release was signed, no photos are being "bought" or "sold" but he told me he can sue me if he sees "his photos" anywhere on my portfolio.
So the question is...what rights do i have as a model to photos with no model release, and a verbal agreement???
I love the past shots we have taken, and the reason he freaked out on me is because i didn't like the "edgy" edits he did, that made me look like a drug addict, and not a professional model.
When i asked other photographers i had worked with what THEY thought of the "new edited photos" they all agreed that they did NOT represent me well at all, and they understood why i was upset.
Some photographers say that I do have rights even though i never signed a release and never had him sign one, however the photographer in question is saying that I have NO rights to anything and he is able to use them however he wants, and im the dumb one for not signing a release.
PLEASE HELP! lol
Wow, girl! So sorry this happened!
THIS is exactly why I do releases or I ask if the photographer/stylist/anyone involved has one for ME to sign.
-I personally have a basic release, which states WHAT concept(s) we are doing, WHO is involved and what PAYMENT (including TF) was given.
-After all is signed and the shoot is complete, everyone gets a copy. I don't care if they throw it in the trash. I KNOW it was done, as I have the original, with our MM/FB/Email correspondence attached
But, I digress...
As he has threatened you, you can possibly beat him to the punch and seek council for his threatening suit. And if he did so, I don't believe it can stand as well as your rebuttal, being that his edits defame your brand, image and likeness. You may also note that though you were satisfied in previous collaborations & he gave no cause for you to assume his editing will be defaming to yourself.
Faith Bombshell Tyler wrote: Well he did threaten to sue me if i didn't take them down, thats what the main worry was about.
I believe there are steps he can take or has to take before it gets to that stage. Ignore him. My thoughts are that if it was a trade shoot and you have to take images down, then you didn't get anything in return. In economics it is called "consideration" and used in court as well.
Basically, you can revoke his rights to display your likeness, and you must remove all of your pictures as he owns the copyright.
Lose/Lose?
Edit again:
You don't need to revoke, you never gave him permission to use your likeness in the first place. But both of you will have a hard uphill battle lawyer wise.
That appears to be just for commercial purposes - the model has no 'rights' to her likeness being used or displayed in other contexts.
Photographer owns the copyright = photographer can do with them as he pleases.
studio36uk
Posts: 20,227
Tavai, Sigave, Wallis and Futuna
GCobb Photography wrote:
Faith Bombshell Tyler wrote: Well he did threaten to sue me if i didn't take them down, thats what the main worry was about.
I believe there are steps he can take or has to take before it gets to that stage. Ignore him. My thoughts are that if it was a trade shoot and you have to take images down, then you didn't get anything in return. In economics it is called "consideration" and used in court as well.
Very much on the right track. Where the agreement was an exchange of services [TF*] then both beneficiaries relative to their position and, absent any other agreement [e.g. contract or license] or statutory requirement [e.g. a required written release in the case of the photographer in some states], would normally have the right to use the work under an implied license BUT only to the extent that would have arisen in a negotiation and been subject to a written agreement or license. It is equally likely, where there is no anticipated time limit, that any such implied license afforded to one or the other party [the OP in in this case] in that exchange would be non-revocable provided that the use [in this case by the OP] did not exceed the use that was reasonably anticipated from the onset.
= if the OP contributed their time in exchange for only the images [and the use of them] as consideration, and there was no express license, then a non-revocable implied license arose to the extent of the initial understanding of the OP's use of the images [based on the usual custom and practice within the modelling / photographic community]. Conversely, if the photographer now intends to attempt to withdraw that license they likely could be subject to a demand by the OP for alternative consideration [compensation] in some other form [e.g. in money] equivalent to the value of their contribution.
DOWN HERE AT STREET LEVEL, AND BELOW: If the photographer wants to be shitty about it, then the model can be equally shitty.
Photographs, and all rights to them, belong to a photographer. They are his "work product" in legal terms. As a model, you own your "image and likeness." Although I might own the photograph of a particular model, unless she gives me permission and authorization to use her "image and likeness," I can't do anything with the photograph. That permission and authorization is usually in the form of a model release, which I require even for TFP shoots. However, if a model were displeased with a particular use of her "image and likeness," I would avoid using it, or (with her agreement) I would avoid using her name in connection with the image. To me, that's just part of being a responsible adult, and I don't want anyone bad-mouthing me because it's bad for business.
In the American legal system, the courts are concerned with two things and two things only: (1) the PROVABLE facts, and (2) the laws that apply to those facts. If I can't prove the facts with admissible evidence, then the court cannot consider them, even though they may be true. And if you claim that I did something, and I deny doing it, the burden of proof isn't on me to prove that I didn't - it's on you to prove that I did, and if you can't do that, the case is dismissed.
My first venture into the legal system was when I filed a suit in small claims court, where the parties typically are not represented by a lawyer. I won easily be default because the defendant didn't even bother to show up. What I ended up with was a piece of paper that said, in essence, "yep, he owes you money." It was up to me to find out what he owned and go get it, which meant hiring an investigator (since I didn't know how to do it or where to look), having the local sheriff serve him with various papers (which I must pay for), etc. I just recorded it in the public records and let it go. I never got paid for that job.
In our court system...
(1) Threatening to file a lawsuit is one thing; actually filing it is quite another.
(2) Filing a lawsuit is one thing; winning it is quite another.
(3) Winning a lawsuit is one thing; collecting on it is quite another.
The photogapher in your case would be required to show how he was damaged by your use of his photographs in order to have an "actionable cause," and since he can't do that (based on what you've told us), I don't see a case here. If I were in your shoes, I'd call his bluff and ignore him. I would ask him to avoid using my name in connection with the images in question; otherwise, you might have a case for defamation.
I recommend that everyone in America educate themselves about the legal system with the material at www.jurisdictionary.com .
DISCLAIMER: I'm not a lawyer or attorney, and I'm not giving legal advice. I am merely expressing an unqualified opinion.
291 wrote: i'm failing to see the problem here. a release isn't the issue, it's consent and you gave it. that's what a release is and whether in written form or not with you both splattering images across the 'net, well, you stepped in it.
go do better work and don't worry about your rear-view mirror. let this be a lesson in what happens when playing let's take pictures without understanding consequence.
all this talk of law in this thread. there isn't a case other than what a starving lawyer might take...and that's why they are starving.
your only light of day here is bitching about it on the forums.
move on.
If you are deeming an implied release then she's got every right to deem an implication of future use.
studio36uk
Posts: 20,227
Tavai, Sigave, Wallis and Futuna
CS-Productions wrote: Photographs, and all rights to them, belong to a photographer. They are his "work product" in legal terms. As a model, you own your "image and likeness."
Actually, in my post just above yours, I make out a case that the model actually has more than just the control of her image and likeness [which right she has inherently as to her own exploitation of it] and additionally, as she made a valuable contribution of her time, that she also acquired usage of the images in the exchange. It is the case that her image and likeness have some value to the photographer, however, her use of the images was her compensation for her time. Therefore, at this point either she can use the images -OR- if she is to be denied that, then she can demand some other form of compensation if she is to be prevented from using the images.
This is not so much a case of copyright law, as might be implied in the first sale doctrine or a compulsory license claim neither of which can be applied precisely to these circumstances, but rather a case based on contract law.
It is simply a matter of: "Ya' pays me now [with images and the right to use them] or ya' pays me later [in cash for time spent]"
RKD Photographic
Posts: 2,989
Iserlohn, North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany
studio36uk wrote: Very much on the right track. Where the agreement was an exchange of services [TF*] then both beneficiaries relative to their position and, absent any other agreement [e.g. contract or license] or statutory requirement [e.g. a required written release in the case of the photographer in some states], would normally have the right to use the work under an implied license BUT only to the extent that would have arisen in a negotiation and been subject to a written agreement or license. It is equally likely, where there is no anticipated time limit, that any such implied license afforded to one or the other party [the OP in in this case] in that exchange would be non-revocable provided that the use [in this case by the OP] did not exceed the use that was reasonably anticipated from the onset.
= if the OP contributed their time in exchange for only the images [and the use of them] as consideration, and there was no express license, then a non-revocable implied license arose to the extent of the initial understanding of the OP's use of the images [based on the usual custom and practice within the modelling / photographic community]. Conversely, if the photographer now intends to attempt to withdraw that license they likely could be subject to a demand by the OP for alternative consideration [compensation] in some other form [e.g. in money] equivalent to the value of their contribution.
DOWN HERE AT STREET LEVEL, AND BELOW: If the photographer wants to be shitty about it, then the model can be equally shitty.
Studio36
That makes more sense - but to what extent would it be enforcable in a court of law? And where?
I got the impression that the shoot was less of an arranged TFP shoot ("He was a freind of mine") and more an informal affair. If the photographer claimed as such it comes down to his word against the model's.
studio36uk
Posts: 20,227
Tavai, Sigave, Wallis and Futuna
RKD Photographic wrote: That makes more sense - but to what extent would it be enforcable in a court of law? And where?
I got the impression that the shoot was less of an arranged TFP shoot ("He was a freind of mine") and more an informal affair. If the photographer claimed as such it comes down to his word against the model's.
It presents an interesting, but pretty much straightforward, question as to whether, where the photographer demands the model take down the images and declares, at the same time, that they do not have to, as to whether that constitutes an unjust enrichment** on the photographer's part. I could carry that argument into a court. No problem.
** UNJUST ENRICHMENT: A general equitable principle that no person should be allowed to profit at another's expense without making restitution for the reasonable value of any property, services, or other benefits that have been unfairly received and retained.
Where? Heck, you to take that to a small claims court. There are no copyright questions at all requiring [in the US] a Federal claim.
studio36uk
Posts: 20,227
Tavai, Sigave, Wallis and Futuna
The F-Stop wrote: Just go about your business and forget about it.
The jerk will never come after you, and if he does it'll cost him a fortune; over what a stupid photo?
Come on I looked at your port.. whatever he might have done will have no effect on your beautiful work.
It is not over "a" photo. Note the OP's remark: "... And he went on to state that ALL photos we had shot (we had about 10 photoshoots in 3 years) I had to take down and never use, ..."
It's a lot more than "a" photo. It's about ALL the images supplied to the OP from ~10 photo shoots over a ~3 year time frame.
Fine, I might tell the photographer, but here's what it will cost you. Bada-BANG! Bada-BOOM!
Feverstockphoto
Posts: 261
Belfast, Northern Ireland, United Kingdom
Bada BING? .
Asking him to take image down/change the processing/retouching because you didn't like it or whatever, not the best move imho, softly softly catch a monkey .
Just interested, what you mean by distasteful?
Did you receive any prints from the shoot/shoots any/all shoots, any form of compensation at all besides the images?
Did you retouch any of the images yourself or have anyone else retouch/alter them without permission from the photographer.
He can issue a DCMA take down notice or whatever it's called to stop you from using them on the websites, so if you want to keep any of the images up then i suggest - 'He was your freind' Talk to him, be nice and sort it out! .
Edited: Saying for you to take all images down that he took, would be/is out of order imho as well.
Asking him to take image down/change the processing/retouching because you didn't like it or whatever, not the best move imho, softly softly catch a monkey .
Just interested, what you mean by distasteful?
Did you receive any prints from the shoot/shoots any/all shoots, any form of compensation at all besides the images?
Did you retouch any of the images yourself or have anyone else retouch/alter them without permission from the photographer.
He can issue a DCMA take down notice or whatever it's called to stop you from using them on the websites, so if you want to keep any of the images up then i suggest - 'He was your freind' Talk to him, be nice and sort it out! .
Edited: Saying for you to take all images down that he took, would be/is out of order imho as well.
if he issues a DMCA takedown notice, then it suddenly becomes a question of contract. not going to happen.
Faith Bombshell Tyler wrote: i can also show a before and after, if needed to give a better understanding of what he DID to the photo...my arms are distorted, my complexion is sick looking, i do honestly think he did this meliciously, but i dont understand why?
The photos we shot were originally minor edited, little touchups here and there, and WOOOOOW he made them look....crazy, lets just say.
Okay, so he can edit them how he wants? He made a threat saying "I can do ANYTHING" and i mean ANYTHING to your photos because i own them!!"
but can i keep the ones i like on my port?
Actually, if maliciousness can be demonstrated you might, and I emphasize might be entitled to damages.
But don't rely on my evaluation or that of anyone else here. The laws are different from state to state, so if you want to go this route, a local lawyer is the only intelligent answer. My guess, however, is that you'd be better off to just write it off and go do a better shoot with a better person.
were his edits really so awful that they were harming your career? i've only ever had one model ask for one picture to be taken down (she thought it made her mouth look funny). i had a model's friend add cereal vomit to one of my images that she used as her profile picture on facebook but i thought it was funny and didn't complain.
legalities aside, i think it's against the spirit of a trade shoot for the model to have veto power over the photographer's edits unless he does something like remove the underwear when it was supposed to be a non-bottomless shoot or deliberately uses the image in a defamatory way. the istockphoto release i have some models sign says "no porn and no defamation".
hopefully you guys can work something out to keep the peace rather than going to war and destroying all the good work that had been done before.
Star wrote: If you want to keep using the images you can use emails from before this to try and establish a limited implied usage license. Meaning if he said he was trading you images for use in your portfolio he can't revoke that usage license now, even though he is mad. But neither can you. If you agreed to the session, then you can't later decide only some of the images are ok to use.
Well said.
And with that said, it would only be necessary to document IF he was to pursue further action to have the OP remove any/all images.
This is simply a case of a model making a foolish demand, a photographer getting foolishly butthurt and ruining an otherwise excellent relationship. You had multiple shoots over years that were excellent and you felt the need to comment on one edit you didn't like? Talk about not seeing the forest through the trees. If the photographer had photoshopped in some goat genitals on your image or something equally offensive, then I could see saying something. But he didn't alter the image from what I can tell...other than a technique you didn't prefer.
And please, OP, do not EVER ask a photographer what they think about another photographer's work. They know you didn't like the edit. Do you think they're going to be honest and say, "Yes, it's different but it's well done." No, they're going to appease you and criticize the work. "Oh, I would NEVER do that to you..."
.
| 
| 
| edu