|
Forums >
Photography Talk >
This is serious!
A model I have recently worked with came to me with a problem. She had a photoshoot with a photographer and the pictures turned out absolutely horrible! The photog did not re-touch the images at all and not only that, but the photographer is using the models REAL name under each of the images. The model asked for the photographer to take them down numerous times. Exactly what can she do and what cant she do? Thanks for your time! Oct 14 07 10:05 pm Link If she signed a release that allows him/her to post the images, there is little she can do. She should be more selective about who she works with in the future..... Oct 14 07 10:08 pm Link Michael Moe wrote: Sad but true. Oct 14 07 10:09 pm Link You are right.. She did sign a contract. I hate it for her...  Oct 14 07 10:09 pm Link Things like this need to be worked out and agreed to before the shoot so there is no confusion later. Did she tell him not to use her name? If so did she tell him what name he could use? Did the photographer tell her her the final images would be retouched? If so then he needs to honor the agreement. If there was no meeting of the minds there isn't much she can do except not work with him again. Was this a TFP/CD shoot or did she pay for the shoot? Oct 14 07 10:10 pm Link Michael Moe wrote: he doesn't need a release to post them. Oct 14 07 10:10 pm Link Maybe you can help her by doing a search in these forums- this topic has been discussed previously. I'll get you started with a basic opinion- She may or may be able to compel the photographer to limit his use of her photos, depending on what agreements were made and applicable laws in her jurisdication. She may or may not benefit from having the pictures made private, and it may or may not be worth the time and effort to fight about it. Oct 14 07 10:12 pm Link And this, my friends is why my release has a spot where the model can request how she wants her billing to appear. Oct 14 07 10:13 pm Link Clearly, the photographer thinks they're good enough to post. How horrible are they? When I modeled, I had TONS of photos published of me where it looked like I ate a bad eggroll. Someone liked it enough to publish it. It's part of the job.  Oct 14 07 10:14 pm Link When I was in the early stages of model shooting two years ago, I was on the other side of a similar predicament. The model had dropped hints that she didn't want to shoot, such as no-showing the first shoot and calling with a typical family emergency story the night before the re-scheduled shoot. I insisted we go ahead, and the shoot went on. The resulting images were awful due to both the model not really wanting to be there and my lack of experience. The model asked that I take them down a few days later, and I obliged out of good will (and to get a psycho out of my life as soon as possible). Taking them down was one of the smarter things I have done. When I look at them now, I see how awful they truly are. Oct 14 07 10:14 pm Link Tim Little Photography wrote: She paid $50 for the shoot. Oct 14 07 10:15 pm Link OP: How experienced was the photographer? Oct 14 07 10:18 pm Link Charlatan Photography wrote: Christ! did the shoot only last half an hour? Oct 14 07 10:20 pm Link Tim Little Photography wrote: Unless it specifically was a work for hire situation, that question doesn't matter - money changes nothing. Oct 14 07 10:22 pm Link Photographers who work with models who are "testing the waters" (probably 75% of the models here) should avoid using full real names whenever possible, even if the model says it's OK. I don't want to come across as a white knight, but sometimes they need to be protected from themselves regardless of legalities. If a model goes by their real name, I only use the first name for crediting. I also avoid using any part of the model's real name or alias in web directory path names, and keep it put of HTML document names as well. If a model changes their alias, I will sometimes update it on my site when convenient, but not vigilently. If a model requests that I do so, I normally do. Oct 14 07 10:24 pm Link Did she bother to check out the photographer's work first? Not that it matters, but does the quality of the photographer's profile and that of her images closely match? Oct 14 07 10:25 pm Link Michael Moe wrote: Frog516 wrote: It depends on what you want to do with the images when you post them and what state you are in. NY actually has a statute that says that a photographer may post a client's image in their place of business without a release to promote their business. The corolary though is that if the client asks for the image to be taken down, the photographer is required to. Oct 14 07 10:32 pm Link I'm just going to think out loud here... but so what? She has some bad images online, so? I don't see how that can prevent her from getting work, since she is going to show her best stuff, and anyone who knows anything IMO would know it's a bad shot anyway... It's not like she is going to put it into her portfolio to show the world. as for him, again, so what? unless these are really sexual images or anything naughty, but in that case they shouldn't have been taken at all if she is having second thoughts. and it's too small of a thing to get worked up about. Just move on. Oct 14 07 10:35 pm Link DiamondCreek wrote: This is what I was wondering too. Do the pics suck because he sucks, or was it just a bad session. What was her reason for shooting with the guy in the first place if his work is bad? Oct 14 07 10:37 pm Link The model needs to stop sweating it. When I see a bad photo, 95% of the time I blame the photographer for it, not the model. The model controls their own appearance. They have no control over the lighting, the composition, the quality of the photographer's equipment, their photography skills, or their post-processing skills. As long as the model looks fine, than a bad photo simply reflects poorly on the photographer, not the model. So if the photographer has a bunch of crappy photos of the model in their portfolio, along with the model's name, I doubt it will have any negative impact on the model at all (unless it is porn or something really demeaning). Oct 14 07 11:07 pm Link I'd say she may be able to convince him to remove her real name, but as for the release the photographer is within his full right to use the images as he pleases. Depending on the verbiage of the release he may also be able to use her name. If the terminology is weak she should draft a cease and deist letter to demand the removal of her name and/or image from the site. It all really depends on the contract. If we could see the contract we'd be able to give more advise. Oct 15 07 06:08 am Link Charlatan Photography wrote: Having been burned by Photoshopped online portfolios, fill in your own blank? The photographer sounds like he's doing other photographers a great justice !!! Oct 15 07 06:24 am Link I would like to see the photos actually. I always believe that you should acquaint yourself with the bad as well as the good in whatever you do. That way you know when you're going wrong. RE: The OP... Where as she might not be able to force him to remove her name or the pictures, since she paid for the photos (and depending on where you are) there is some question as to whether she could get her $50 back. She has paid the photographer for a service and if she did not get the service that was promised in his promotional material then I know some places will have laws about misrepresentation. Why bother? Well I was only thinking that this could be used as some form of leverage to get him to take the photos down. On the other hand, I question whether these pics will actually do her any harm in the long run. Composition is, I believe, the remit of the photographer and people in the industry must understand that? I've been looking for models to help me with my portfolio and I don't worry about the quality of the images on their portfolio. More important to me is look of the model and any glimmer of potential. I think that if the shots are really bad and yet you can still see something about the model then they are much better than the picture allows them to be. Oct 15 07 08:04 am Link What if the "contract" stated that the photographers wouldnt post the images without her permission and the shoot was tfcd but the model was kind enough to buy the cd and give the photographer gas money?? what if the model was also only 17 and the photographer decided to wave the guardian "policy" they said they had and was also in the contract???? what can she do then? Oct 15 07 04:16 pm Link Chris Keeling wrote: The actualy photographer did not shoot instead her husband did the shooting and he shook the entire time and the majority of the images were blurry. So technically the entire shoot was a fraud. Oct 15 07 04:19 pm Link Michael Moe wrote: umm the photographer is allowed to post the images for personal promotion whether or not a release is... retouched or not and using her real name is allowed since its her... without a release the model has no rights to the pictures at all not really even for self promotion if he doesnt wanna give them to her... Oct 15 07 04:20 pm Link Steve Mellor wrote: As would I, but not as much as I'd like to read the release. If she signed it and it has a provision for using her real name (or lacks a provision for not using it), then she could be screwed. Oct 15 07 04:20 pm Link EL Perdido wrote: hahah... maybe it was a fee because he had to shoot her and look at her?... either photog is bad or shes a bad model... or both... no other reasons really... even good photographers on off days still have salvagable pics above par so having an off day isnt an excuse... same can be said modeling wise Oct 15 07 04:22 pm Link Rob Domaschuk wrote: He can use her real name with or without a release... unless shes like in witness protection or something but she shouldnt be using her real name she should be using her new name lol... if he used a fake name and the name he was using wasnt real and had a bad history she then has a reason for him to take them down and even take legal action because of damages... dont feel like getting into technical terms thats just summed up... Oct 15 07 04:25 pm Link J O N A T H A N wrote: Your last statement is probably the best and most important that anyone here can give - only a qualified attorney can tell for sure. My release specifically states that I can use either the model's real name or a fictitious name. Oct 15 07 04:38 pm Link The model has edited an image of the photographers and now the photographer is taking her to court over it.. this is getting crazy! Hopefully it is a bluff and nothing will come of it. Oct 15 07 07:08 pm Link I don't think anyone can give any useful advice unless we can see the photos and the release. Even so, she shouldn't have edited the image without the photographers permission because no matter what the release says, he still owns the copyright. Oct 15 07 07:14 pm Link Fuser Lvia wrote: I'm not a lawyer and this is not legal advice. Your best bet is to contact an Attorney about this situation Oct 15 07 08:01 pm Link the shoot lasted about 4 hours and the pay was out of pity. the model was expecting one thing and got something completely diffrent. no court would hold this matter anyway though, that is the funny thing. the model only wants her images to be taken down because she thinks it will hurt her portfolio and over all image. this model is not a skank hoe or a car humper and she doesn't want to be associated with a photographer who depicts all of her models in that manner. that is the only issue. the photographer on the other hand is actually serious about taking the model to court..........and she has revised the signe contract as well. how can the model prove that the contract is new and not the one she signed? Oct 16 07 04:27 pm Link Mickle Design Werks wrote: NO parents were there, and the shoot was supposed to be tfp but the model gave gas money and then the photographer told her that 20 bucks would cover a cd of her ten favorite images light scribed, photoshoped, retouched and in two diffrent sizes. the model recieveda cd of every single picture taken including some that werent of her and none of them but one had been touched, and the one that was touched wasnt even one she had asked for. the photographer essentially took advantage of the minor and then got her husband to take the pictures, who tried to get the model to take off her shirt as well. Oct 16 07 04:29 pm Link J O N A T H A N wrote: LOL Oct 16 07 05:05 pm Link Charlatan Photography wrote: Probably nothing. Oh wait, she can complain. Oct 16 07 05:06 pm Link Christopher Hartman wrote: I really wonder how things happened before the internet! Oct 16 07 05:08 pm Link Amy Dunn wrote: I call bullshit. Please e-mail offending photo to [email protected] Oct 16 07 05:09 pm Link J O N A T H A N wrote: well, i dont think i am that ugly. ...i guess i could be wrong Oct 16 07 05:22 pm Link |
. but, the photographer did not take any of the pictures , she then told me that her husband was going to be shooting me, and that they were a "team". or some bull shit like that, anyway, he couldnt hold still, the shots were all blurry and just at bad perspectives. plus it started to rain and he wanted to continue, thought it would be "sexy'..it sucked