Photographer
HJM Photography
Posts: 1485
Malibu, California, US
Model removes logo & trademark from client's photo & posts it on her instagram, referencing other brands. Recently someone who works at an agency shared with me that a model I shot for a clothing company client during a paid shoot had removed the client's logo & trademark from the client's photo, and then posted the photo on her own instagram, actually referencing other brands, while failing to reference the brand that had paid her. The client was not happy. Removing trademarks and other branding information via photoshop is not cool, and doing so will probably not help her career. What are some people thinking these days?  Has anyone else seen such things? Discuss!
Photographer
Leighsphotos
Posts: 3070
Toronto, Ontario, Canada
So what?
Send her an email if it bothers you so much. You can't control everyone and everything. Seems to me that it's your client that should have the problem.
Photographer
HJM Photography
Posts: 1485
Malibu, California, US
Leighthenubian wrote:
So what?
Send her an email if it bothers you so much. You can't control everyone and everything. Seems to me that it's your client that should have the problem. The client does have a problem.
Do trademarks and copyrights mean nothing to your clients? What kind of clients do you shoot for?
Photographer
HalfMoonColorado
Posts: 797
Murrells Inlet, South Carolina, US
Who paid who?
I am not your average photographer. I think if someone pays me to shoot them they are entitled to images without my watermark or name on the image if they want. I also don't expect credit anywhere although it is nice if they do.
Side story: I once gave a model a copy of the entire shoot. (Yeah yeah that's all been hashed over a thousand times and isn't the point here.) Anyway I later saw one of the shots posted in her portfolio and it listed a different photographer. Usually that would have made me mad but it was maybe what I thought the absolute worse pic from the entire shoot so I didn't ask her to correct it.
Photographer
HJM Photography
Posts: 1485
Malibu, California, US
HalfMoonColorado wrote:
Who paid who?
I am not your average photographer. I think if someone pays me to shoot them they are entitled to images without my watermark or name on the image if they want. I also don't expect credit anywhere although it is nice if they do.
Side story: I once gave a model a copy of the entire shoot. (Yeah yeah that's all been hashed over a thousand times and isn't the point here.) Anyway I later saw one of the shots posted in her portfolio and it listed a different photographer. Usually that would have made me mad but it was maybe what I thought the absolute worse pic from the entire shoot so I didn't ask her to correct it. The client whose brand & trademarks the model removed paid for the shoot.
The way modeling often works is that a client pays a model to model their brand, which is often distinguished by logos and trademarks. Thus when the model removes the brand's logos and trademarks from the photographs she was paid for and posts the altered image on her own instagram without referencing the client, but while referencing other brands instead, the client is not happy.
Does this make sense to the photographers here who are paid to shoot for brands?
Photographer
American Glamour
Posts: 38813
Detroit, Michigan, US
I am not suggesting that this is something you would go to court for, but it is relevant to note that it is illegal to remove a trademark or copyright notice from an image without consent. There is language that makes it unlawful to remove "management data" that reflects upon the ownership of an image.
Likewise, removing the trademark and then using the image to promote another product could also be infringement.
What she did is certainly wrong, but in most cases, it isn't nefarious. It is ignorance. Why not just approach her and, in a non-=threatening manner, explain it to her?
Photographer
HJM Photography
Posts: 1485
Malibu, California, US
GPS Studio Services wrote:
I am not suggesting that this is something you would go to court for, but it is relevant to note that it is illegal to remove a trademark or copyright notice from an image without consent. There is language that makes it unlawful to remove "management data" that reflects upon the ownership of an image.
Likewise, removing the trademark and then using the image to promote another product could also be infringement.
What she did is certainly wrong, but in most cases, it isn't nefarious. It is ignorance. Why not just approach her and, in a non-=threatening manner, explain it to her? Well, she probably won't be getting work in that arena as a few connected folks shared it. It's not a huge deal, but she lacks a bit of commonsense and foresight as how to best further her career.
One would think that those aspiring to work in the industry would be more attuned to the concerns of the clients who pay their way?
Photographer
Laubenheimer
Posts: 9317
New York, New York, US
HJM Photography wrote:
Model removes logo & trademark from client's photo & posts it on her instagram, referencing other brands.
Recently someone who works at an agency shared with me that a model I shot for a clothing company client during a paid shoot had removed the client's logo & trademark from the client's photo, and then posted the photo on her own instagram, actually referencing other brands, while failing to reference the brand that had paid her. The client was not happy.
Removing trademarks and other branding information via photoshop is not cool, and doing so will probably not help her career.
What are some people thinking these days?
Has anyone else seen such things? Discuss! haven't you discussed this already?
https://www.modelmayhem.com/po.php?thre … 781&page=1
https://www.modelmayhem.com/po.php?thre … 469&page=1
Photographer
Roy Nelson Photos
Posts: 286
West Hollywood, California, US
I avoid this issue by simply not releasing to the model proprietary photos unless cleared by the client first.
Photographer
Lallure Photographic
Posts: 2086
Taylors, South Carolina, US
Those kind of people don't think. They simply do themselves more harm than good.
Photographer
Brooklyn Bridge Images
Posts: 13200
Brooklyn, New York, US
Did you share client photos with the model in question ?
Photographer
Tim Little Photography
Posts: 11771
Wilmington, Delaware, US
If she is "referencing" other brands that could be considered false and misleading. The client's lawyer should send her a cease and desist order ASAP.
As the photographer I can see why you are mad but you really don't have any skin in the game at this point.
Photographer
Vintagevista
Posts: 11804
Sun City, California, US
Never happened to me - not particularly worried about it.
Why should you care? Not your copyright - not your images. It's between the copyright owner/client and the model.
It's like a car mechanic getting all flailing upset about a car they fixed - getting stolen a few months later.
Not your circus - not your monkeys - not your first time on this same ride.
You might ponder on that last bit for a while.
Photographer
E Thompson Photography
Posts: 719
Hyattsville, Maryland, US
Vintagevista wrote:
Never happened to me - not particularly worried about it.
Why should you care? Not your copyright - not your images. It's between the copyright owner/client and the model.
It's like a car mechanic getting all flailing upset about a car they fixed - getting stolen a few months later.
Not your circus - not your monkeys - not your first time on this same ride.
You might ponder on that last bit for a while. Where in the OP did he say he sold the copyright to this image instead of licensing usage? So since he the creator and didn't transfer copyright, they are his images.
Photographer
J E W E T T
Posts: 2545
al-Marsā, Tunis, Tunisia
If the client paid her, it's their problem. Stay out of the drama.
Photographer
Virtual Studio
Posts: 6725
Toronto, Ontario, Canada
E Thompson Photography wrote:
Where in the OP did he say he sold the copyright to this image instead of licensing usage? So since he the creator and didn't transfer copyright, they are his images. Are they? You sure?
Did the OP put the trademark on the images (ie did they go thru the art dept of the client company?) If he licensed the creation of derivative works then who has the copyright?
Photographer
Leighsphotos
Posts: 3070
Toronto, Ontario, Canada
HJM Photography wrote:
The client does have a problem.
Do trademarks and copyrights mean nothing to your clients? What kind of clients do you shoot for? A variety of clients in fact and successfully too.
There isn't a single client/photographer/artist etc that hasn't had work misused or straight up ripped off. Consider it the cost of being successful in business. You have to weigh the importance of each infraction and how it impacts your time and resources. In my experience the people who worry the most about it are not busy enough with real work.
I didn't say ignore it. What I said was so what....if it bothers your client as much as you say then they will address it. What does it have to do with you, were you not paid for your time?
Photographer
American Glamour
Posts: 38813
Detroit, Michigan, US
E Thompson Photography wrote:
Where in the OP did he say he sold the copyright to this image instead of licensing usage? So since he the creator and didn't transfer copyright, they are his images. Virtual Studio wrote:
Are they? You sure?
Did the OP put the trademark on the images (ie did they go thru the art dept of the client company?) If he licensed the creation of derivative works then who has the copyright? You raise an interesting point. Adding a logo, trademark or watermark will generally not be enough to give rise to a derivative work, since the image itself hasn't been altered. There is discussion in the statutes about "image management" information, that discusses attribution. You have raised an interesting issue though. Just because he may still hold the copyright, doesn't necessarily make it his issue rather than the client's issue. A lot will depend on the language of the license. Likewise, the trademark issue never becomes his. It is only for the client.
Photographer
Vintagevista
Posts: 11804
Sun City, California, US
E Thompson Photography wrote:
Where in the OP did he say he sold the copyright to this image instead of licensing usage? So since he the creator and didn't transfer copyright, they are his images. From the OP
"Recently someone who works at an agency shared with me that a model I shot for a clothing company client during a paid shoot had removed the client's logo & trademark from the client's photo"
It's pretty clear that this is between the client and the model. The photographer has no dog in this fight.
Photographer
Looknsee Photography
Posts: 26342
Portland, Oregon, US
Vintagevista wrote:
Never happened to me - not particularly worried about it.
Why should you care? Not your copyright - not your images. It's between the copyright owner/client and the model.
It's like a car mechanic getting all flailing upset about a car they fixed - getting stolen a few months later.
Not your circus - not your monkeys - not your first time on this same ride.
You might ponder on that last bit for a while. Just because the photographer had a paying client, that does not automatically make the client the copyright owner.
Robert Jewett wrote:
If the client paid her, it's their problem. Stay out of the drama. I disagree -- the photographer's professional status relies in large part on his reputation, and if he gains the reputation of having (and not caring if) his images misappropriated & misused by his models, he might find himself out of work, too.
Photographer
J Haggerty
Posts: 1315
Augusta, Georgia, US
Robert Jewett wrote:
If the client paid her, it's their problem. Stay out of the drama. I'm inclined to agree here. The client should be the one to approach the model directly, a middle man can only get caught in the crossfire. Whoever paid the model and paid for the shoot has the authority to speak to the model about getting the image removed.
HJM Photography wrote:
Well, she probably won't be getting work in that arena as a few connected folks shared it. It's not a huge deal, but she lacks a bit of commonsense and foresight as how to best further her career.
One would think that those aspiring to work in the industry would be more attuned to the concerns of the clients who pay their way? You've detailed the probable outcome for said model and really don't need to highlight the situation further.
Photographer
J Haggerty
Posts: 1315
Augusta, Georgia, US
Looknsee Photography wrote:
Just because the photographer had a paying client, that does not automatically make the client the copyright owner.
I disagree -- the photographer's professional status relies in large part on his reputation, and if he gains the reputation of having (and not caring if) his images misappropriated & misused by his models, he might find himself out of work, too. -------Edited to try and fix the quotation but I can't seem to get it to work properly------------
Work for hire falls under different jurisdiction. The client has a strong say in what happens with the images and where/how they are viewed.
The details of such circumstances should have been detailed in the negotiation/set up phase of the shoot - get your contracts, people! Make sure all the i's and t's are dotted and crossed to avoid these headaches.
Photographer
David Stone Imaging
Posts: 1032
Seattle, Washington, US
HJM Photography wrote:
Model removes logo & trademark from client's photo & posts it on her instagram, referencing other brands.
What are some people thinking these days? There's a good chance the model didn't even know it was illegal. Someone...photographer or client...should inform her that what she did is not OK, and why, and give her a chance to correct it. If she doesn't, then ask what she is thinking?
Just because a person decides to become a model...or a photographer...does not mean they automatically understand copyright laws and model releases and useage agreements.
(Thus far, both of these areas are mostly unregulated, but at some point in the future we are likely to see a govt entity require a professional license for someone to do work as a photographer or model, and part of that will be to pass a test on the legalities involved in copyrights, model releases, and usage agreements. Think I'm joking...look around at how many professions require licensing or permitting now.)
Photographer
ShapeTheLight
Posts: 270
Garner, North Carolina, US
HalfMoonColorado wrote:
Side story: I once gave a model a copy of the entire shoot. (Yeah yeah that's all been hashed over a thousand times and isn't the point here.) Anyway I later saw one of the shots posted in her portfolio and it listed a different photographer. Usually that would have made me mad but it was maybe what I thought the absolute worse pic from the entire shoot so I didn't ask her to correct it. Really? That was pretty dirty on her part...
Photographer
Al Lock Photography
Posts: 17024
Bangkok, Bangkok, Thailand
HJM Photography wrote:
The client whose brand & trademarks the model removed paid for the shoot.
The way modeling often works is that a client pays a model to model their brand, which is often distinguished by logos and trademarks. Thus when the model removes the brand's logos and trademarks from the photographs she was paid for and posts the altered image on her own instagram without referencing the client, but while referencing other brands instead, the client is not happy.
Does this make sense to the photographers here who are paid to shoot for brands? I'd let her know that what she did is not only not acceptable, it is illegal. And if she had any brains in her head at all, she'd take down the offending photograph and write a very nice apology to the client.
Photographer
Dan Howell
Posts: 3552
Kerhonkson, New York, US
I don't see it as substantially different than a model taking a published tear sheet and covering a logo in a personal portfolio. Or cropping, to show herself in a group shot. You are talking about a model's own image on her personal instagram, right? A model does not give up all rights to display images that she is actually IN regardless of if she is paid or not.
You've got to have more important things to worry about in your life…seriously. This is not a case of trademark piracy. It sounds more like you are looking to pick a fight so you can come out the hero. Sad, really...
Photographer
American Glamour
Posts: 38813
Detroit, Michigan, US
For the record, if this is going on Instagram, Instagram forces a crop to square. There could be absolutely nothing intentional here at all.
Photographer
Marin Photo NYC
Posts: 7348
New York, New York, US
Another reason not to share images from paid work. 
Photographer
Al Lock Photography
Posts: 17024
Bangkok, Bangkok, Thailand
Dan Howell wrote:
A model does not give up all rights to display images that she is actually IN regardless of if she is paid or not. Actually, without the copyright holder's permission, a model doesn't have any right at all to display an image just because she appears in it.
Photographer
Dan Howell
Posts: 3552
Kerhonkson, New York, US
Al Lock Photography wrote:
Actually, without the copyright holder's permission, a model doesn't have any right at all to display an image just because she appears in it. Please quote the law or statute that backs that up. The notion that you are proffering has been said here many times, but I have yet to see dispositive citations. The industry of modeling operations in a diametrically opposite position as the one you state especially for examples of work that were created with the intention of distribution. You are suggesting that a tear sheet portfolio is a copyright violation, so please prove it.
Photographer
Al Lock Photography
Posts: 17024
Bangkok, Bangkok, Thailand
Dan Howell wrote:
Please quote the law or statute that backs that up. The notion that you are proffering has been said here many times, but I have yet to see dispositive citations. The industry of modeling operations in a diametrically opposite position as the one you state especially for examples of work that were created with the intention of distribution. You are suggesting that a tear sheet portfolio is a copyright violation, so please prove it. Berne Convention
US Copyright Law
The creator of a photograph has COMPLETE control over where that photograph can be displayed. etc. with the exception of specifically stated exceptions within the statute. Model portfolio use is not one of the specified exceptions.
How the model industry operates has very little to do with the law. Instead it operates on assumptions that no one will call them on their violations of the law.
Photographer
J Haggerty
Posts: 1315
Augusta, Georgia, US
Al Lock Photography wrote:
Berne Convention
US Copyright Law
The creator of a photograph has COMPLETE control over where that photograph can be displayed. etc. with the exception of specifically stated exceptions within the statute. Model portfolio use is not one of the specified exceptions.
How the model industry operates has very little to do with the law. Instead it operates on assumptions that no one will call them on their violations of the law. Please provide a sourced quote of this. From what I'm reading of the Berne Convention US Copyright Law is that there is limited GLOBAL DISTRIBUTION OF SALES on a specific work but this doesn't mean that it can't be displayed anywhere. The law was brought forth when works were protected in the country of origin but could be sold elsewhere, i.e. if an image was produced in the US it was protected within the US but someone in England could distribute and sell said image.
Photographer
Al Lock Photography
Posts: 17024
Bangkok, Bangkok, Thailand
Jennifer Haggerty wrote:
Please provide a sourced quote of this. From what I'm reading of the Berne Convention US Copyright Law is that there is limited GLOBAL DISTRIBUTION OF SALES on a specific work but this doesn't mean that it can't be displayed anywhere. The law was brought forth when works were protected in the country of origin but could be sold elsewhere, i.e. if an image was produced in the US it was protected within the US but someone in England could distribute and sell said image. Berne Convention means that all work produced in any signatory nation are protected in ALL signatory nations.
And since the Berne Convention (and related updates) specifically protects the copyright protection of the creator or copyright holder, that obviously means that distribution, etc. IS legally controlled by the Copyright owner.
Given the number of lawsuits won in this regard worldwide, it should be obvious, but it seems that someone always wants to find a reason not to ask for permission or to use the work without paying for it.
That's a crime. In some countries, it's a criminal offense with jail time. In most, it's a civil offense with fines.
Photographer
Dan Howell
Posts: 3552
Kerhonkson, New York, US
Al Lock Photography wrote:
The creator of a photograph has COMPLETE control over where that photograph can be displayed That is so not true, but more importantly, it's really not what this discussion is about. I have yet to be convinced that collecting images that a model actually appears in is considered a commercial usage. If what you contend is true, merely folding a print or a tearsheet to hide a logo would be considered illegal. Prove this or stop responding to this thread. Similarly, displaying a model's tearsheets on a personal or agency site is what you consider an actionable copyright violation. Show me a case where a client has sued the model to prevent display of an image she is actually in as a part of his or her portfolio.
Photographer
j3_photo
Posts: 19885
Las Vegas, Nevada, US
Dan Howell wrote:
That is so not true, but more importantly, it's really not what this discussion is about. I have yet to be convinced that collecting images that a model actually appears in is considered a commercial usage. If what you contend is true, merely folding a print or a tearsheet to hide a logo would be considered illegal. Prove this or stop responding to this thread. Similarly, displaying a model's tearsheets on a personal or agency site is what you consider an actionable copyright violation. Show me a case where a client has sued the model to prevent display of an image she is actually in as a part of his or her portfolio. Are you kidding me with your replies in this thread? Do you not understand basic copyright law in this country? Not only can you google and learn but here's a simple page from the PPA to show you:
http://www.ppa.com/about/content.cfm?ItemNumber=1720
Under the Federal Copyright Act of 1976, photographs are protected by copyright from the moment of creation.
Photographers have the exclusive right to reproduce their photographs (right to control the making of copies).
Get it? PHOTOGRAPHERS. Not the model, not the client.... NOBODY (unless a new written agreement is reached).
Photographer
Dan Howell
Posts: 3552
Kerhonkson, New York, US
j3_photo wrote:
Get it? PHOTOGRAPHERS. Not the model, not the client.... NOBODY (unless a new written agreement is reached). Look up: exceptions to copyright. they are numerous.
It's more than laughable that you think that this issue can be emphatically summarized in a statement like yours above. Or that the sweeping generalization that I responded to are as simple as they appear on their face.
|
