Home · Register · Join Upload & Sell

  

  Previous versions of airfrogusmc's message #14230651 « Getting credit -- or not! -- for pics on TV news programs »

  

airfrogusmc
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off
Re: Getting credit -- or not! -- for pics on TV news programs


Littleguy wrote:
I get your point about client relations but there is a lot of unknowns here but from the info provided by the OP - it doesn't look like the dance company provided the pic.

The image was taken while the dancer was with Ballet Chicago but he now dances with Providence Ballet. It would be highly unusual for one dance company to use pics from another company. Plus the dancer's contract with the dance companies usually have clauses that govern how and when the image of dancers are to be used that are no longer employed by the company.

The image was cropped with the foot cut-off about where his watermark would be - cutting feet of dancers is a big no no in dance photography and the dance companies would know this. Plus the dance company would have the non-watermarked version of the image if they were a client of Ron's.

So given the info provided by Ron - I find it highly unlikely that the situation is as you described - of course, there is no way of knowing unless one inquires with the TV station or the dancer himself...I would personally find out more info from the dancer about what happened before deciding on a course of action but keeping silent will only have Ron and us guessing and making assumptions about what happened here.


airfrogusmc wrote:
gschlact wrote:

I don't agree , the issue is with the Station, and from the photographer's perspective nothing to do with the dancer/client. The client didn't illegally publish the photo.

airfrogusmc wrote:
Here's the situation guys. The client probably submitted the photographs on a job Ron was already paid on. They should have contacted him but they didn't so should he make a deal of something he already said he was not inclined to do and maybe causing a thing that ultimately involves the client and a good STEADY client. I would let it go to. He'll by far make up any loss in the future because it is a good steady client. The ballet (client) not the TV station.



Here's what you and many do not get. The client, which is probably the ballet company, I would bet sent the station some images. Yes, they probably should have checked with Ron first but this is a probably a very steady client that generates a lot of revenue over the year. So Ron makes a stink and maybe gets the clients back up over something he will make up financially in one job. There are reasons some have a steady client base and others cut off their noses to spite their face. If yo are in it for the fast usually short $$$ then get your $1000 or so for raising a big stink and maybe damage the relationship with a 6 figure client. Sounds like a good plan to me ha ha....

Ron might want to mention something to the client like maybe next time give me a choice and remind them that he holds the copyright but maybe he has an agreement with the client for unlimited usage which maybe the client has paid for.





Here's what I do know, The ballet is Rons client. I have come to believe that the news people contacted the Ballet for images. The rest is speculation but I do have a feeling I am close to being right.



Oct 26, 2017 at 11:46 AM





  Previous versions of airfrogusmc's message #14230651 « Getting credit -- or not! -- for pics on TV news programs »

 




This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.