Ex Voto  Studio wrote:

I looked at the video and assumed that is what he was doing given it's nature and the wording in it.

from the OP's post, I was under the impression he did this video for them as a thank you. I don't have any evidence to support either your conclusion, or mine.

pullins photography wrote:

what kind of successful business model is there, when wrong behavior is rewarded?

I was being sarcastic!  I agree!  But wait..... I am thinking of the weather man I see on TV.... He can be wrong 50% of the time and still get a raise.   

Do I win a prize or something?

Good Egg Productions wrote:

Interesting point.

You got them to sign a contract that was extremely favorable to you. So they gave you a couple hours of their time and you gave them one sized image with your logo on it.

Then you flaunt the fact that you finished a bunch of other images of them for your own use.  Of COURSE they feel slighted and taken advantage of. They don't understand the time it takes to finish images or how much work it does (or doesn't) take to create an animoto slideshow. So they have no perception of value added to them. all they see is their images, that they can't have, as advertising you.

There's no good solution here, as even if you give them everything at this point, they aren't going to change their opinion of you. I'd say just end all communication with them, as I'm sure you have. However, I might remove the video and maybe only make it available to show to future clients privately. Or don't.  I don't know.

that's what a business person does...get terms most favorable for himself. It's not the job of the photographer to make out terms for a model or anyone else. You all seem to forget that we're only advocates for ourselves, and no one else.

Ex Voto  Studio wrote:

I was being sarcastic!  I agree!  But wait..... I am thinking of the weather man I see on TV.... He can be wrong 50% of the time and still get a raise.   

Do I win a prize or something?

LOL..didn't realize the sarcasm. All of this just reminds me of places at which I worked, where a customer would screw up, then complain, then be rewarded...of course the word got out about how to get your way..and voila! None of those places are in business anymore

pullins photography wrote:

that's what a business person does...get terms most favorable for himself. It's not the job of the photographer to make out terms for a model or anyone else. You all seem to forget that we're only advocates for ourselves, and no one else.

I suppose that's why you guys are making a living doing this, and I'm just farting around doing it for fun.

pullins photography wrote:
that's what a business person does...get terms most favorable for himself. It's not the job of the photographer to make out terms for a model or anyone else. You all seem to forget that we're only advocates for ourselves, and no one else.

That sounds more like a hostile take over lol.  In a past life I worked on such cases and I always found that even in that life it was best to have everyone at the table feeling they were walking away with their head held high.  The models were wrong in this scenario but they were not alone in my opinion.  I am much more that just an advocate for myself.... that being said... ironically I cannot speak for anyone else in this thread. 

pullins photography wrote:

LOL..didn't realize the sarcasm. All of this just reminds me of places at which I worked, where a customer would screw up, then complain, then be rewarded...of course the word got out about how to get your way..and voila! None of those places are in business anymore

I did my college internship at Disney World...so YES I understand lol...
Ever heard of the "Disney Idiot Smile"?  We learned it the first day of training.

I think the OP had an opportunity to try and fix this and possibly make some money from it but as I said before.... it is too late for both sides now.

Doug Lester wrote:
OK Im an old fart, a long time retired commercial phtographer who has been through about every possible contract and other business situation. As such I originally came to MM to on occasion add some of my experience to various situationss Now I have a couple of comments.

I don't know but this sounds sort of like one of those other side of the story situations. But regardless, you are blaming MM for your choice of inexperienced and unproven models. MM did not select them for you, MM did not hire them and send them to you. You did all that. All MM did was to give you access to them. Had you chosen to use working models through an agency, the situation would never have arisen. 

Actually I fail to understand you insisting on sticking to the terms of a "contract" when sending them aditional images would cost you nothing. I assume you live in the same geographic area as these two models, who are both young attractive individuals who have their own circles of friends, relatives and others with whom they discuss a wide range of topics. Guess which local photographer now has the name of mud with a ton of formerly possible clients. The models do not have the pix, but the photographer will never know how many paying clients he lost becauses of this.

I thini you lost track of the situation working photographers find themelves in these days. Business is as bad as the economy. Photographers all across the country are going out of business every day of the week. Some of thoe have done evefrything possible to keep and develope new clients, others don't do that. Others insist on sticking to the letter of each agreement they make, regardless of how badly it makes them look to the public. They aso go down, but ata much faster rate. Look at it this way. Had you agreed to provide the images you had already post processed, it might have cost you a couple of emailes. You might have lost a few minutes from your life, but the photos were done, they were finished. Had you not decided to be a hard ass, you would have had two young,attractive models singing yur praises to their friends and acquaintances. You are doing or want to do weddings? Where the hell is you market located? It's located all the hell around those two models who now consider to be stingy and mean. Where did a piece of your market just fly away to?

Making a living with photography is about far more than doing good photography. It's much more about doing business.  Doing business is as much about customer/client good will than anything else. With your hard arsed attitude, frankly I woud not invest in your business.

photographers are going out of business because of the technology,not because of business practices. Everyone has a cell phone camera..everyone has a cheap post processing program, etc. There is no longer a true cost to a photo since the advent of digital film, so I ask you, how can you have a business which is no longer "needed" by the masses?

Ex Voto  Studio wrote:

I did my college internship at Disney World...so YES I understand lol...
Ever heard of the "Disney Idiot Smile"?  We learned it the first day of training.

I think the OP had an opportunity to try and fix this and possibly make some money from it but as I said before.... it is too late for both sides now.

making money is fine...but the OP has his limits, as well he should. I can't go back and complain about what my car didn't come with now months later. I signed a contract..simple as that

Good Egg Productions wrote:

I suppose that's why you guys are making a living doing this, and I'm just farting around doing it for fun.

doesn't matter what the reason is...what matters is, I said I'll do A, if you do B..You did B, and I did A, and I gave you C too...doesn't mean that I now owe you the Alphabet and words to go along with them.

pullins photography wrote:

making money is fine...but the OP has his limits, as well he should. I can't go back and complain about what my car didn't come with now months later. I signed a contract..simple as that

VERY true!  On the other hand if I look up the number of car dealerships v. the number of photographer in NC I am pretty sure people will have a greater choice of photographers.  Which will go directly back to his business practice.  Speaking of which.... it is time for me to shoot.   

Pullins....  I like you!  Keep Rockin!

pullins photography wrote:
doesn't matter what the reason is...what matters is, I said I'll do A, if you do B..You did B, and I did A, and I gave you C too...doesn't mean that I now owe you the Alphabet and words to go along with them.

+1
Calling people who fulfill their words as a d**k is pure madness. Hobbyists may never understand that, but delivering 100%, no more, no less, is the way business flourish.

P.S. Great job OP! I like your work

S W I N S K E Y wrote:
if the images are already done, it doesn't require, not one bit of effort to have people saying nice things about you...instead of BBB talk..

just sayin ~

business is not a popularity contest. I've known lots of "nice" people I wouldn't do business with, because I didn't trust them.

I could care less about people complaining, because most people's complaints are based upon some degree of fantasy and misconception, than reality. In this instance, the reality is they got what they bargained for...simple as that

Kenneth Light Studios wrote:
They filled a claim to get all images and stop me from using the images in advertising, my contract states I can and they release that when they sign.

Kenneth Light Studios wrote:
I should add this was a test shoot to see if I can use them in my classes where I teach Photographers, that is the ONLY time I do TF work, yes they can have other images at a cost.

i often find the nomenclature of those claiming to be "professional" doesn't pass the litmus test.  this is a perfect example.

this was described as a test.  the results of such really shouldn't be written into an agreement for use as a marketable product.  it's a test to see if a marketable product can be created so a compensation element can be incorporated upon success.  if the imaging from the test works, compensate accordingly.  if it doesn't, no harm, no foul.

personally, i don't really give a shit about this individual situation.  what i do give a shit about is this prevailing attitude that some (calling themselves professionals) try to trap those into a one-sided agreement for their personal gain.  it's disingenuous, the ultimate label of gwc (taking the advantageous route) and a disservice to the craft that reflects on many.

perhaps a new subject for the class; "how to get those to buy into your glorious workflow to make money without paying them."

pullins photography wrote:
business is not a popularity contest.

you think so huh?

pullins photography wrote:
Hobbyists may never understand that, but delivering 100%, no more, no less, is the way business flourish.

This is so not true.

Going the extra mile. Under promise, over deliver. Exchange in abundance.

That is only way to flourish and prosper.

S W I N S K E Y wrote:
you think so huh?

Seriously. Business is such a popularity contest.

When you own your business for real, you will KNOW that being popular is a real key to having a successful booming business.

S W I N S K E Y wrote:
you think so huh?

CK Studios wrote:
Seriously. Business is such a popularity contest.

When you own your business for real, you will KNOW that being popular is a real key to having a successful booming business.

you obviously missed my sarcasm...have fun kids, im out ~

pullins photography wrote:
photographers are going out of business because of the technology,not because of business practices. Everyone has a cell phone camera..everyone has a cheap post processing program, etc. There is no longer a true cost to a photo since the advent of digital film, so I ask you, how can you have a business which is no longer "needed" by the masses?

Continue to believe that. Live by and run your business based on that belief. When you are looking for a job in a different field, stick to that belief, then your business failure would not seem so much to be your own fault.

pullins photography wrote:

where does the OP say he's using the images for advertising?

https://www.modelmayhem.com/po.php?thre … st15694442

pullins photography wrote:
business is not a popularity contest.

Do you really believe that? Wow!

Ever been in business? Actually running and managing your own business? Business is almost exclusively a popularity contest!

Doug Lester wrote:

Do you really believe that? Wow!

Ever been in business? Actually running and managing your own business? Business is almost exclusively a popularity contest!

I'm going to have to agree here. Popularity is key, not only in non-public based businesses like mine, but especially for photographers who cater to the public like wedding and portrait photographers.

Hell, if you're popular, you don't even need to be that good. :-)

291 wrote:
perhaps a new subject for the class; "how to get those to buy into your glorious workflow to make money without paying them."

Better a class called: "bidness is bidness." a.k.a. don't sign that contract unless you KNOW what you are signing.

Studio36

Good Egg Productions wrote:
Sooooo...

You shot them, gave them the ONE finished edit as promised in your contract, then finished a whole lot of other ones and made a really slick animoto slideshow, showed it to them, but refuse to give them any if the other images you finished for the video.

That sounds like a bit of a dick move to me.

How does it hurt you to give them the images you've already done the work for?

If I'm misunderstanding the details here, please let me know.

Not to really defend the OP overall, but there's nothing wrong with trying to make money from photography.  Really.

Art of the nude wrote:
Not to really defend the OP overall, but there's nothing wrong with trying to make money from photography.  Really.

There's still far too many people, not a few of them around here, that still don't know the difference between "commercial use" and "commercialization" of images.

Studio36

S W I N S K E Y wrote:
did you pay them?

pullins photography wrote:
what does that have to do with anything?

He frequently argues that giving the model / client images has no value.   And, of course, the OP did in fact "pay" the model with the agreed compensation.  At least, based on his story.

Art of the nude wrote:
And, of course, the OP did in fact "pay" the model with the agreed compensation.  At least, based on his story.

And this ^^^ as well!

Studio36

CK Studios wrote:

This is so not true.

Going the extra mile. Under promise, over deliver. Exchange in abundance.

That is only way to flourish and prosper.

Sure, deliver 10x as much as you promised. Clients will like you, and then you'll be exhausted. Smart move there.

Let's put it into perspective, where the OP could charge 3-digits $$$ per pics. Say there are 10 good pics. That's now 4-digits $$$$ lost if he just give it for free to the client. 1 or 2 won't hurt. But "over-deliver"? Worse, he'll be labeled "you-can-get-it-for-free-when-you-ask" photographer.

We'll talk after someone can prove such business model is sustainable and successful after years of run. It's great for jump-starting career, but not for the long run. And what I get is OP is already long into the career.

Gloria Budiman wrote:

Sure, deliver 10x as much as you promised. Clients will like you, and then you'll be exhausted. Smart move there.

Let's put it into perspective, where the OP could charge 3-digits $$$ per pics. Say there are 10 good pics. That's now 4-digits $$$$ lost if he just give it for free to the client. 1 or 2 won't hurt. But "over-deliver"? Worse, he'll be labeled "you-can-get-it-for-free-when-you-ask" photographer.

We'll talk after someone can prove such business model is sustainable and successful after years of run. It's great for jump-starting career, but not for the long run. And what I get is OP is already long into the career.

I think what some are saying here was that it was the way he dangled the extra images after the fact, that was the bad business move... I don't know the whole story here (none of us do), but I'm assuming he never said he was going to retouch a bunch of images and show them to the model in hopes that she would open her wallet.

If that were the intention all along, then it's fine as long as everyone knew that from the beginning.

Oh, and I've been in business for a while and often over deliver to my commercial clients. Most have been loyal, although I'm sure it has more to do with my winning personality. :-)

Brooks Ayola wrote:

I think what some are saying here was that it was the way he dangled the extra images after the fact, that was the bad business move... I don't know the whole story here (none of us do), but I'm assuming he never said he was going to retouch a bunch of images and show them to the model in hopes that she would open her wallet.

If that were the intention all along, then it's fine as long as everyone knew that from the beginning.

Oh, and I've been in business for a while and often over deliver to my commercial clients. Most have been loyal, although I'm sure it has more to do with my winning personality. :-)

I agree with you on *slightly* over-deliver. But from OP's side of story, the models seem to demand *ALL* images. Now, good luck over-delivering to such degree.

Brooks Ayola wrote:
I think what some are saying here was that it was the way he dangled the extra images after the fact, that was the bad business move... I don't know the whole story here (none of us do), but I'm assuming he never said he was going to retouch a bunch of images and show them to the model in hopes that she would open her wallet.

If that were the intention all along, then it's fine as long as everyone knew that from the beginning.

Oh, and I've been in business for a while and often over deliver to my commercial clients. Most have been loyal, although I'm sure it has more to do with my winning personality. :-)

I agree, what OP did was a dick move, deliberately dangling that slideshow of finished images then telling the models they can't use them was pretty low.

He might have been better off not showing them the slideshow, or giving them a dvd of it, or creating a more fair contract.

What I want to know is in OP's image "valued at 350.00" line does he in fact sell WATERMARKED image for this price?

Gloria Budiman wrote:

I agree with you on *slightly* over-deliver. But from OP's side of story, the models seem to demand *ALL* images. Now, good luck over-delivering to such degree.

Not exactly, OP did a shoot, gave the models ONE watermarked print, then processed and retouched a dozen more images and used them in an advertising campaign. He THEN showed the couple the campaign and refused to deliver anything else. (even though the images were finished)

Everyone screwed up.

The models should never have signed his contract, he should have been more fair.

Gloria Budiman wrote:

I agree with you on *slightly* over-deliver. But from OP's side of story, the models seem to demand *ALL* images. Now, good luck over-delivering to such degree.

We don't know what communications led up to that point. The OP comes off as pretty arrogant to me. His whole point is that he's not going to book MM models anymore and this is why. Who would come and post that here? It's basically, "I'm taking my toys and going home now."

It seems to me like there's a decent chance he played a big part in the situation getting escalated. We don't know that they wouldn't have been happy with some amount of images between 1 and all.