Very True!!  and yeah, the guy is an ass LOL

You're not dumb for not signing a release. A release gives him rights and doesn't give you any.

In the context of this thread, I think you're best of listing what it is that you want and people can suggest how to go about getting that.

It's not your business if he wants to Instagram the photos or edit them in a way that he looks like he has no idea what he's doing for use his portfolio.

What is it that you would consider the ideal resolution?

there is nothing implied at all.  there was consent by both parties toward both the release of likeness and the use of the images.  such consent need not be in strict written form, or for all anyone knows there is an e-mail trail that states such to effect and through agreement by both the images could be used for personal non-commercial use.

i stand by what i wrote.

that is absolutely true, john, although use of likeness or imaging need not be explicit (although specificity does provide additional protections). 

with or without any previous release or use license the parties can't go back to restrictions after the fact per the previous consent willingly provided by both parties.

in this case per the op, neither the model or the photographer has much to stand on in making demand unless such use by either has caused harm.

Personally you both need your heads banging together.

It does make me wonder what you have said to upset someone that you already had a good working relationship. Maybe you have been listening too much to others. Until you requested he take down photos you two seemed to be getting along just fine. It doesn't matter what problems others say they had if you have never had a problem.

You were happy with all the shoots you did and state in the above quote that you don't care what he does with the photos, yet you've already asked him to take them down. In my book that's a bit divaish.

Sounds like he made the over the top demand to prove a point on the stupidity of it all, whether he will go through with it is a different matter. Send him a polite apology (eat some humble pie) telling him you realise you shouldn't have asked him to take them down and inform him you will also be keeping the photos up on your profiles too since this was the original agreement. Ask him to remove any tags or mention of your name from the 3 pictures and wish him luck.

Then move on.

There may be some truth in that, but that does not account for the threatened retaliation.

And if the photographer then follows through with a DMCA notice on each and every one of the images the OP has posted, forcing them to be taken down - - - what then?

Studio36

Comply with the order and send him the bill for your time assuming the original agreement was payment in pictures.


Edit.

Bizarre, just re-read your earlier posts which pretty much agrees with what you highlighted in my earlier post so no it sure what point you're trying to make.

You're assuming he has made a threat based on one side of the story.

If a model has no rights to the images, why would model releases even exist?
If a model signs a release would that not mean that he/she does, in fact, have certain rights?
What rights is a model giving up, by signing a release, if he/she had no rights to begin with?

I find it kind of disturbing to see how many photographers believe that owning copyright = "I can do anything with the photos". ...even without a release.
That is simply not true.

Why do we bother with releases if, by virtue of the fact that we own the copyright,  a model has no rights to begin with?

Someone correct me if I'm wrong here.

Copyright - Gives photographer control over use of a photo.
Model release - Grants photographer a specified use of a model's likeness.
Usage license - Grants model a specified use of a photo.

Oversimplified? Yes. But if you can learn those three definitions, you can understand why each exists and their basic purposes.

Yes. Said that on Page 1

I was questioning the position where she told him, in effect, to "fuck off" and continued using the images but he then served a DMCA notice on them forcing them off the web. That leaves her with nothing at that point, though she could try and file a counter-notice it is primarily designed as a prelude to a copyright suit and that could be very problematic for the OP if the photographer were to take that forward as such.

As this is the kind of thing I regularly engage in, a DMCA notice without the OP filing a counter-notice would serve as good probative evidence that he DID intend to deny her the use of the images. Then, if she does not challenge the DMCA notice, she has the option of avoiding a copyright claim, where that is very costly to defend, and might be able to go directly after the money as a [breach of] contract claim [on several grounds]. Placing the OP in the best possible position is a matter of the tactics applied.

Studio36

The questions being asked here are two separate ones:

1) If there is no release what "rights" does the photographer have?;

but also

2) If there is no EXPLICIT license what IMPLIED rights to USE the images does the model have?;

It is only #2 that were are really concerned about. That has nothing at all to do with model releases.

A lot of posters are conflating the two questions into a single question and that is of no use in answering the OP's precipitous issues with the photographer making the demand that she remove ALL her images or their declaration that they could, and might, sue the OP if she fails to do so.

Studio36

It appears you are arguing with what I said after only reading the first sentence.
Because I already answered your question.

MISINFORMATION ABOVE. The text in italics is incorrect. 

You didn't have any publication or copyright rights to release.  The photographer owns the rights by default. 

The part about how expensive the court system will be is, indeed correct.

This is sound, down to Earth, advice from a very experienced photographer.

If he publishes the photos without your permission (no model release) you may have a cause for action against him, but, again, the legal process is expensive.  You might find an attorney to take the case on contingency.  It's a form of "Battery" to publish someone's likeness without their permission with some exceptions.  You would need expert legal advice to determine if his use was an exception permitted without a model release.

Looks like you can either "Kiss and make up" or "Kiss off" or spend some serious $$ trying to prevail.

Unless he files a take down notice on every site the images are on.

Which would then give her additional evidence of his breaching the terms of their trade

A llama release is because the llama has rights to her name and likeness, not the photo.

They don't protect the photographer. The prove that the publisher has the right to use the name and likeness.

This is terrible advice. I'm not going to give any but prosecuting copyright infringement is easy. Defending it is not. While there may be an argument that you had some type of license, and you probably did, proving any term if one was even discussed would be challenging.

Using images without a written agreement is one thing. Using them after receiving any type of C&D, which you've publicly admitted to getting here is another.

Then don't worry.  Let him try to sue you.

Another way to look at it though...since he's being a shit...do you want to promote his work?

if I was a model and liked my photo, I'd still use it personally but professionally, I'd remove it so as to not direct any attention to them.

I think you're misunderstanding the context.

The model doesn't have rights to the photos.  They have rights.  But they do not have rights to the photos.  A license will give them certain rights depending on the terms of the license.  A model release gives rights to the release holder as described in the release.

Provocateur !

Studio36