login info join!
Forums > General Industry > ...and even when the model does sign the paperwork Search   Reply
123last
Photographer
RKD Photographic
Posts: 3,265
Iserlohn, North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany


...there's still no guarantee that something won't go wrong...

The image on the right appears to be fan-art created by one of her FB followers - but she's still posted it up on her Fan-Page...

For now I've taken some screen-grabs and asked her very politely to remove it, reminding her of the clause in the Usage Agreement that prohibits this sort of thing (removal of watermark, creation of derivative works etc etc).

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8231/8576200249_34dcef9572_c.jpg
Mar 21 13 02:22 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
David J Martin
Posts: 458
Amberg, Bavaria, Germany


I could understand your frustration.  I have to say though, you have an excellent image that you captured.  I also really love the work the person did with it.  I would be angry myself seeing my name taken off of my work and replaced with someone else's name.  That being said, I really enjoyed both images.

Edit:  I'm captivated by both images in their own unique and stunning execution.  It's too bad it was an unauthorized/un-agreed derivative.
Mar 21 13 02:37 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
RKD Photographic
Posts: 3,265
Iserlohn, North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany


David J Martin wrote:
I could understand your frustration.  I have to say though, you have an excellent image that you captured.  I also really love the work the person did with it.  I would be angry myself seeing my name taken off of my work and replaced with someone else's name.  That being said, I really enjoyed both images.

Not enough ravens, I think... big_smile
If she'd asked I might have said yes - she didn't edit the image herself after all and you can't control what fans do, but she ought to have asked if I minded the artwork being posted.

Mar 21 13 02:40 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
usb photography
Posts: 274
Memphis, Tennessee, US


I have seen many of my images redone in some crazy way from the original. and ones that i find that really do not fit i request them to be hidden.
Mar 21 13 02:40 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
rbphotos
Posts: 36
Las Vegas, Nevada, US


I like the one on the right side.
Mar 21 13 02:42 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
photosbydmp
Posts: 3,808
Shepparton-Mooroopna, Victoria, Australia


Livid is how i'd be with some one else's name on your original.
Mar 21 13 02:44 am  Link  Quote 
Model
Scarlett de la Calle
Posts: 414
Canberra, Australian Capital Territory, Australia


rbphotos wrote:
I like the one on the right side.

Didn't read the post did you?

Mar 21 13 02:46 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
RKD Photographic
Posts: 3,265
Iserlohn, North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany


Scarlett de la Calle wrote:
Didn't read the post did you?

It's OK - I 'almost' like it as well - it fits the llama's personality quite well - I'd just like to be consulted first, is all...

Plus I'd have done it a bit better, I like to think... big_smile

Mar 21 13 02:49 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
David J Martin
Posts: 458
Amberg, Bavaria, Germany


RKD Photographic wrote:

Not enough ravens, I think... big_smile
If she'd asked I might have said yes - she didn't edit the image herself after all and you can't control what fans do, but she ought to have asked if I minded the artwork being posted.

I agree completely.  Ask first, and certainly don't insult your amazing photo even further by replacing your name.

Mar 21 13 02:50 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
rbphotos
Posts: 36
Las Vegas, Nevada, US


Do I have to read a posting about how the world is out to get you and rip off your work when all your going to do is post about it on MM and FB. So with that said I feel so so bad for you that you had to post a photo of a person claiming thay are a criminal without even giving her a day in court. You might win your copyright case but I'm sure she will now win her case of slander and internet harassment. Beware of the things you wish for you just might get it.
Mar 21 13 03:23 am  Link  Quote 
guide forum
Photographer
studio36uk
Posts: 21,744
Tavai, Sigave, Wallis and Futuna


rbphotos wrote:
Do I have to read a posting about how the world is out to get you and rip off your work when all your going to do is post about it on MM and FB. So with that said I feel so so bad for you that you had to post a photo of a person claiming thay are a criminal without even giving her a day in court. You might win your copyright case but I'm sure she will now win her case of slander and internet harassment. Beware of the things you wish for you just might get it.

What you don't understand, and it is quite obvious, is that the OP is in Germany and in doing what was done, nearly everywhere in the European context, it may very well be a criminal offence, in addition to it being an infringement from a civil law standpoint.

Where there are laws prohibiting harassment they are often provided with exceptions applicable to where other legitimate rights are being investigated and enforced. As for defamation, truth is an absolute defence. Even the veil of Data Protection, which is something very close to a legal sacred cow here, can be pierced in the process of rights investigation and enforcement.

Studio36

Mar 21 13 04:36 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
RKD Photographic
Posts: 3,265
Iserlohn, North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany


rbphotos wrote:
Do I have to read a posting about how the world is out to get you and rip off your work when all your going to do is post about it on MM and FB. So with that said I feel so so bad for you that you had to post a photo of a person claiming thay are a criminal without even giving her a day in court. You might win your copyright case but I'm sure she will now win her case of slander and internet harassment. Beware of the things you wish for you just might get it.

Actually that's not what I said at all - go back and read it again - she has (in error, I have no doubt, because she's a lovely person) posted a derivative artwork by someone else and I have asked her to remove it.
I posted it here to illustrate that even when all the ticks are in the box and all the necessary paperwork is in place, these things can still occur.

Slander? Nope it's true.
Harrassment? Nope - has to be multiple instances to qualify - one very polite PM certainly isn't that and again - I have the law on my side if it ever goes that far - which it won't. Because as I said, she's a nice girl and will no doubt remove the offending item now that I've adverted her to her mistake.

Mar 21 13 05:01 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Chicchowmein
Posts: 14,397
Palm Beach, Florida, US


rbphotos wrote:
Do I have to read a posting about how the world is out to get you and rip off your work when all your going to do is post about it on MM and FB. So with that said I feel so so bad for you that you had to post a photo of a person claiming thay are a criminal without even giving her a day in court. You might win your copyright case but I'm sure she will now win her case of slander and internet harassment. Beware of the things you wish for you just might get it.

you need to review what slander and libel is and what it takes to get damages * Hint if you can prove it's true then it's not slander.

And I didn't see anywhere the OP called the model a criminal.

Mar 21 13 05:15 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Chicchowmein
Posts: 14,397
Palm Beach, Florida, US


RKD Photographic wrote:

It's OK - I 'almost' like it as well - it fits the model's personality quite well - I'd just like to be consulted first, is all...

Plus I'd have done it a bit better, I like to think... big_smile

I don't like the eyes in the "re-edited version" but regardless altering your work without permission and slapping his own watermark on it. Not cool.

Mar 21 13 05:17 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Decay of Memory
Posts: 581
Asheville, North Carolina, US


rbphotos wrote:
Do I have to read a posting about how the world is out to get you and rip off your work when all your going to do is post about it on MM and FB. So with that said I feel so so bad for you that you had to post a photo of a person claiming thay are a criminal without even giving her a day in court. You might win your copyright case but I'm sure she will now win her case of slander and internet harassment. Beware of the things you wish for you just might get it.

Are you sure that you are not coming closer to slander and internet harassment with your post than the op with his?

Mar 21 13 05:21 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Decay of Memory
Posts: 581
Asheville, North Carolina, US


Kind of a cool fan picture but a transgression to not ask permission.
Mar 21 13 05:22 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Andrew Thomas Evans
Posts: 24,078
Toulon, Provence-Alpes-Côte-d'Azur, France


RKD Photographic wrote:
The image on the right appears to be fan-art created by one of her FB followers - but she's still posted it up on her Fan-Page...

Yep, it's a big criminal issue when it's Facebook and on a Fanpage! Better call a lawyer, cops, and throw the book at them! 




Andrew Thomas Evans
www.andrewthomasevans.com

Mar 21 13 08:30 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
RKD Photographic
Posts: 3,265
Iserlohn, North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany


Andrew Thomas Evans wrote:

Yep, it's a big criminal issue when it's Facebook and on a Fanpage! Better call a lawyer, cops, and throw the book at them! 




Andrew Thomas Evans
www.andrewthomasevans.com

That's right Andy - it is - and if those images aren't gone by tonight I'm gonna knee-cap the Be-yatch.

Or it could be something totally trivial, but noteworthy in light of the many, many discussions we have on MM regarding watermarking, copyright and Model Release/Usage Agreement paperwork.
Had my watermarks not been appended to the other images in her gallery, I would never have known: one of my other images was noticed by a former colleague who linked me to her new page - which I had no previous knowledge of - and scrolling down, I found this.

See, there I was thinking this might be of some interest to a few of us here and the same old faces are just out to score points as bloody usual...

Mar 21 13 08:39 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Sleepy Weasel
Posts: 4,588
Castle Rock, Colorado, US


Removing your name and replacing it with theirs is the biggest offense, IMO.  I don't know why it's so hard for people to ask permission first, like, "Hey, I LOVE that photo--would you be OK if I did a fan art rendering of it if i give you credit for the original photo?"

I don't appreciate my work being edited, but if someone asked, and did a good job of their work, and I was credited with the original, I'd be OK with it most of the time.

This is blatant stealing. There was a case recently where an artist was doing this and reselling his paintings. I think he got sued and lost (?).
Mar 21 13 10:20 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Christopher Hartman
Posts: 54,137
Buena Park, California, US


RKD Photographic wrote:
...there's still no guarantee that something won't go wrong...

The image on the right appears to be fan-art created by one of her FB followers - but she's still posted it up on her Fan-Page...

For now I've taken some screen-grabs and asked her very politely to remove it, reminding her of the clause in the Usage Agreement that prohibits this sort of thing (removal of watermark, creation of derivative works etc etc).

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8231/8576200249_34dcef9572_c.jpg

Forget the model. the Artist has violated your copyright.  You'll need to go after them and you should.  He's got his signature at the bottom.

Mar 21 13 10:24 am  Link  Quote 
Model
JadeDRed
Posts: 5,402
London, England, United Kingdom


Christopher Hartman wrote:
Forget the llama. the Artist has violated your copyright.

To a degree. I tell people who create fan art they have to ask the photographer for permission, i don't do it for them, that's between the artist and the photographer.

Mar 21 13 10:27 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
ontherocks
Posts: 22,359
Salem, Oregon, US


i like both versions. for my part i don't stress about it unless there's money involved. i've had model's friends add cereal vomit to my images on facebook.

the fact that he signed a derivative work based on your image might be kind of upsetting, though. if you rip someone off at least credit them.

i stopped watermarking after my first few model shoots. the watermark gets removed more often than not.
Mar 21 13 10:29 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Fotographia Fantastique
Posts: 17,324
Lebanon, New Hampshire, US


I sympathize. The relative quality or lack thereof in the derivative work IS NOT the issue here. It's the unauthorized/uncredited part (and indeed the claiming of credit) that's the issue. I wonder how many more people are going to come in here and be like "oooh look how cool - I like the one on the right doodz!!"
Mar 21 13 10:29 am  Link  Quote 
Artist/Painter
sdgillis
Posts: 2,434
Portland, Oregon, US


Fan art is one of those mysterious things that tugs at the strings of copyright laws and usage.  Fan art (at least in the US) is not viewed as infringement in many situations.  I would say this example is not enough of a derivative to be re-authored.  The artist did a bad thing in not asking permission, and a good reminder that artists should ask for license to use other peoples photos.
Mar 21 13 10:34 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Christopher Hartman
Posts: 54,137
Buena Park, California, US


RKD Photographic wrote:

Not enough ravens, I think... big_smile
If she'd asked I might have said yes - she didn't edit the image herself after all and you can't control what fans do, but she ought to have asked if I minded the artwork being posted.

You shouldn't expect her to know and honestly, unless she commissioned the worked, it's not her obligation to know or enforce it.  What she COULD and should be concerned is what this artist is going to do with it because he won't have the necessary model release.

However, i think common curtesy would have been for her to inform you of work and find out what you think.

Mar 21 13 10:48 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Silver Mirage
Posts: 1,574
Plainview, Texas, US


In a way the OP was lucky - some of the things that have been done to my photos I would never post anywhere.

On the other hand, in the US this would be a violation of copyright and possibly also of contract - since the OP said there was written agreement. Most photographers would also consider it unethical, but artists such as painters and digital artists might take a more liberal view. And court cases do not always go as one might expect.

Since it is unlikely either the model or the artist has enough money to cover your costs in a legal action the best alternative is to request a take-down or possibly ask for a credit (something like "From a photograph by .....).
Mar 21 13 11:12 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
RKD Photographic
Posts: 3,265
Iserlohn, North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany


sdgillis wrote:
Fan art is one of those mysterious things that tugs at the strings of copyright laws and usage.  Fan art (at least in the US) is not viewed as infringement in many situations.  I would say this example is not enough of a derivative to be re-authored.  The artist did a bad thing in not asking permission, and a good reminder that artists should ask for license to use other peoples photos.

Not just any 'fan', but Rory Fiorito - a well known (apparently) artist responsible for a lot of album art: Uriah Heep; Blue Oyster Cult; Diamondhead; Dokken...

https://www.facebook.com/rory.fiorito

Mar 21 13 11:18 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
RKD Photographic
Posts: 3,265
Iserlohn, North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany


Christopher Hartman wrote:

You shouldn't expect her to know and honestly, unless she commissioned the worked, it's not her obligation to know or enforce it.  What she COULD and should be concerned is what this artist is going to do with it because he won't have the necessary model release.

However, i think common curtesy would have been for her to inform you of work and find out what you think.

No I agree - the model is not at fault here - other than by posting the derivative work on her page without informing me - that was the purpose of the post - to show that even with all the checks and balances in place, you still cannot control things effectively...

See my post above - I've emailed him and asked what he thought he was up to...

Mar 21 13 11:21 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Fotographia Fantastique
Posts: 17,324
Lebanon, New Hampshire, US


RKD Photographic wrote:

Not just any 'fan', but Rory Fiorito - a well known (apparently) artist responsible for a lot of album art: Uriah Heep; Blue Oyster Cult; Diamondhead; Dokken...

https://www.facebook.com/rory.fiorito

Interesting.
I see the pic is already making the rounds of metal fan social media pages too...

Mar 21 13 11:24 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
RKD Photographic
Posts: 3,265
Iserlohn, North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany


Fotographia Fantastique wrote:

Interesting.
I see the pic is already making the rounds of metal fan social media pages too...

Yup... If I got $1 for every share... hmm
*sigh*

Mar 21 13 11:29 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Fotographia Fantastique
Posts: 17,324
Lebanon, New Hampshire, US


RKD Photographic wrote:

Yup... If I got $1 for every share... hmm
*sigh*

Now you're just that one guy who did a photo homage to that Rory Fiorito raven pic! lol

Mar 21 13 11:33 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
RKD Photographic
Posts: 3,265
Iserlohn, North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany


Fotographia Fantastique wrote:

Now you're just that one guy who did a photo homage to that Rory Fiorito raven pic! lol

*sob*

Mar 21 13 11:44 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Solas
Posts: 9,486
Toronto, Ontario, Canada


Should turn it into an opportunity. Would take a 10 minute e-mail, a bit of sales acumen and probably save you countless hours frustrating over it, and countless hours more wasting badgering about it in the forums.


may even make a few bucks
Mar 21 13 11:48 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
RKD Photographic
Posts: 3,265
Iserlohn, North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany


Karl Johnston wrote:
Should turn it into an opportunity. Would take a 10 minute e-mail, a bit of sales acumen and probably save you countless hours frustrating over it, and countless hours more wasting badgering about it in the forums.


may even make a few bucks

Well I've sent him an invoice, if that's what you mean...

Mar 21 13 12:08 pm  Link  Quote 
Artist/Painter
sdgillis
Posts: 2,434
Portland, Oregon, US


RKD Photographic wrote:

Not just any 'fan', but Rory Fiorito - a well known (apparently) artist responsible for a lot of album art: Uriah Heep; Blue Oyster Cult; Diamondhead; Dokken...

https://www.facebook.com/rory.fiorito

ya... that's not fan art.... that's blatant infringement for personal gain. He drops images into monochromes, throws in some sappy 70's clouds, makes prints, signs and sells them.  Artists get away with it all the time, just look at all the posters for Jimi Hendrix and Marilyn Monore artworks that get sold in shopping malls etc.  Do you think they had a license?  Every time I ask this to a gallery owner, they tell me that they assume the artist has one.

I wouldn't mind profiting off celebrity images and playing the "I didn't know card" or "it's a derivative"  "found art! - I found this photo, I splashed some color on it -then made 6000 prints"

Mar 21 13 12:09 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Christopher Hartman
Posts: 54,137
Buena Park, California, US


RKD Photographic wrote:

Well I've sent him an invoice, if that's what you mean...

a straight up invoice without knowing his distribution? You might be underselling the value. big_smile

Mar 21 13 12:25 pm  Link  Quote 
guide forum
Photographer
studio36uk
Posts: 21,744
Tavai, Sigave, Wallis and Futuna


Christopher Hartman wrote:

RKD Photographic wrote:
Well I've sent him an invoice, if that's what you mean...

a straight up invoice without knowing his distribution? You might be underselling the value. big_smile

True. I, personally, would never have started out with an invoice. I would have sent a notice of claim [that, for several reasons] and opened an invitation, after suitable disclosures from them, to initiate a without prejudice discussion on an acceptable settlement. Who knows that acceptable settlement, if one is reached, could yield 10's or 100's of times a blind invoice amount.

Plus - - - if he is distributing by other means or in other places and once he is put on notice then any further infringement becomes willful, prima facie intentional and blatant. Ooops for him!

The model is not completely out of the loop either. She is after all displaying an infringing image. She needs to be put on notice as well and told, flat out, to remove it. Failing to do so, after notice, also works an infringement on her part.

Studio36

Mar 21 13 02:34 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
RKD Photographic
Posts: 3,265
Iserlohn, North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany


Well we're in discussion as to the invoice - he's now removed the artwork from his page (I have screen-grabs and an email from him admitting he did the artwork and apologising).
I've just settled for billing him my usual fee for an image of this sort, plus 'a lot more' for the unauthorised use.
I can't see anywhere else that it's being distributed other than FOC on FB.
Mar 22 13 02:05 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
intense_puppy
Posts: 864
Brighton, England, United Kingdom


RKD Photographic wrote:
Well we're in discussion as to the invoice - he's now removed the artwork from his page (I have screen-grabs and an email from him admitting he did the artwork and apologising).
I've just settled for billing him my usual fee for an image of this sort, plus 'a lot more' for the unauthorised use.
I can't see anywhere else that it's being distributed other than FOC on FB.

You'll probably never see the money, but at least you scared the idiot. That's the problem with the culture of "content everywhere" - people just think it's disposable and therefore worthless.

Mar 22 13 04:15 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
RKD Photographic
Posts: 3,265
Iserlohn, North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany


intense_puppy wrote:

You'll probably never see the money, but at least you scared the idiot. That's the problem with the culture of "content everywhere" - people just think it's disposable and therefore worthless.

I can almost guarantee that I won't - unless his conscience suddenly overwhelms him - it's not like I'm going to pop over to Canada and lean on him.
If I were to try and take him to court, I'd probably bankrupt myself in the process...

Mar 22 13 05:20 am  Link  Quote 
123last   Search   Reply



main | browse | casting/travel | forums | shout box | help | advertising | contests | share | join the mayhem

more modelmayhem on: | | | edu

©2006-2014 ModelMayhem.com. All Rights Reserved.
MODEL MAYHEM is a registered trademark.
Toggle Worksafe Mode: Off | On
Terms | Privacy | Careers