I understand that which is why I didn't place the copyright over the middle of the photo. It would take away from her design. It only appears like the on screen. The final image doesn't have the copyright over the middle, or anywhere else on the photo.
sspellman wrote:
seasian-
As a pro in the fashion world, your actions here are unprofessional and will lead to less business rather than more. I understand your initial commitment of photos with your logo on them as part of the shoot, however putting it in the middle of the photo destroys any value it has to the designer. If he knew ahead of time that this was how he would receive the files, I'm sure he never would have agreed on the shoot. Forcing him now to pay your hourly rates is equally unfair.
You are correct that offering a professional service means clearly explaining all details to the client before the shoot to maximize satisfaction and future referrals. You will find that work with emerging/student designers and models is poor business-they don't have any significant money. These are ideal times to build your reputation and resources for paid work in other situations.
I really hate to let go of full sized images. Why does she need her name on the photo? Won't she be sending them out/ showing them? You agreed on web sized and she wanted full size? Ticks me off. Maybe it's done in this business idk
I'm sick of people who want free stuff. I don't do any fashion photography, though, maybe if you get to hang around models and stuff it would be worth it. see if she'll do your laundry or mow your lawn for free.
models and interesting clothes to photograph also cost money - that is why TFP (Time for Prints, or images these days) is a time honored trade made between photographers and models/artists. for the model shooting i do, the going rate is $125-150/hr with minimum 2 hr as normal. that doesn't include makeup, wardrobe, lighting, studio and equipment rental, etc if you have to do any of that. depending on what you are trying to practice, you could shell out $4K for that privilege each time you do it with the model being an insignificant part of the cost. luckily, that's not what i do.
beginning models aren't worth that much and beginning fashion photographers aren't either but the only way to get past being a beginner is to do it lots and learn. the expectation in the fashion business is, as pointed out, whoever makes it first remembers who helped make it possible. of course, expectations are not contracts.
i have no problem with the numbers that were traded in the OP. i have trouble with the designer/model, as RustyBug says, changing the agreement after the fact. however, i would not have quoted a dollar amount in response. i would have traded for something that she has (clearly not money) -- to pose and model her designs some more free of charge for practice. it appears that it has gotten well past the point where this is possible but i think my offer of another trade would have had a much higher chance of acceptance and also led to a further working relationship.
Yeah, I thought about that afterwards. They are providing time and portfolio shots. If that's the industry standard, you will probably have to do that. Be wary of people who say they have no money and those who just don't want to spend it on photography.
harvey steeves wrote:
here would be my take: you own the copyright to the images BUT she owns the copyright to the designs. If she hasn't given you a release for those designs, you can't show images of them anywhere for commercial purposes. You only have a model release, if I read your initial posting right. The student has as much right to ask for her info to be included on the images as you do. Help each other out.
In the US, fashion designs are not copyrighted. That quirk is because clothing is considered "utilitarian" under US law. Now, costume design (such as for stage and screen) is a different thing--that is "non-utilitarian" and thus copyrighted.
When aspiring photographers, make-up artists, models, stylists, et cetera work on a project in which the common result is to be photographs for everyone's portfolio with no other payment changing hands, the common practice is for everyone to get images suitable for their portfolios.
That means: Full-res images without anyone's watermark or credit. Images with the photographer's watermark or branding are nearly useless to everyone else. Don't be a jerk about this--if they contributed their valuable expertise ("valuable" because it's what they do for money), then they should get clean, full-res images. That's what the deal is supposed to be--that's what it was even in the film days.
Need your help with a small issue. I receive this summons for a lawsuit for the following. I am being sued for $9000 in small claims court for the following:
1. Punitive damages for breach and fraudulent contract 2. Loss in Academic grade 3. Selling and using intellectual property without permission on website and Facebook.
Before everybody starts in on me. I am new at the business aspect of photography. I retire from the military in 18 months and plan to go into Photography full time when I retire. So I'm still learning.
My issues with her lawsuit is:
1. there was no breach of contract. I did not agree to any of her terms so in essence there is no contract. Secondly, the fraudlent portion she is referring to is that I "photoshoped" her signature on to the contract. She said she did not know what she was signing. I explained to her that she was signing a model release as a witness. Again, no contract between the student and I.
2. Loss in academic grade is speculation. She had more than ample time to shoot her designs as she owned a camera.
3. Do I need the student's permission to use those photos? Or do I need the model's permission. And, no I was not selling any of those photos to the public. The photos she's referring to had a price attached to it, however access to the gallery was only given to her. If I had been trying to sell those images, I would have not used a password. And I would have uploaded her images to Flickr and possible other stock photos sites.
What should I do? Also, because of this the model who I worked with won't shoot with me again. Apparently, she is good friends with the student. Last time the model and I spoke was on good terms. So if the student has bad mouthed me do I have grounds for a countersuit? Just a thought.
It's been a long, long time since I was at Art Center, but we used to do TFP for Ford and Elite models. We photographed the new models who needed to build their portfolio but had little money. In exchange the agencies would arrange for their top talent to help us out by modeling on our big projects.
What I learned was the photographers who were easy to get along with and were generous with prints ended up being remembered by both the models and the agencies.
[Edit] Sorry I didn't see the above before I posted. I should have gone to page 2.
It's a shame it came to this. It could have been avoided. You don't need advice from a photography forum any more, you need some legal advice.
1. I would strongly suggest ceasing all communication on this issue on this or any other forum until the suit is resolved. Anything you post here can be used if she can find it (and you should assume she will).
2. My opinion: the bridge is burned. I would not anticipate any further work from this designer or this model. That being said...
2a. I would file a reply along with a counter-suit for my time for the shoot, my time for the editing, full cost for any low-res photos provided, and any other costs you can reasonably document. I'm not a big fan of "sue first, question later", but small claims filings are cheap and that is likely why she went this route. She probably didnt think it would have any repercussions and might be assuming you dont respond or show up, in which case she would get a default judgement. By countersuing, you can reasonably document your time and she will realize that it is possible she leaves court owing you your full costs for this exercise.
3. Really, this should be #1: Register your copyright on all of these images immediately and make sure the registration accompanies the response you file. This will cost you $35 and not only establish unquestionable ownership to the images, but also show the judge that you know and understand the business of photography and how to protect your rights. Keep in mind, this has nothing to do with what is depicted in the images, just the images themselves. Let her argue that you cannot file copyright her design and she will bury herself in the eyes of the judge.
Absent a written contract and with posession of cross-signed model releases, she has quite a bit to prove and not a lot of resources to prove it.
I think the photographer's being short sighted. I started out doing model tests at the New York agencies. My motivation was to use model-worthy women to build my portfolio so that it presented itself on a professional level. There was no talk of copyright issues or payment. I got out of it what I put into. If he's created some terrific photos then he's getting something out of it much more valuable than the meager fee she paid him.
Give her the images without your info so that she can use the effectively to promote herself. She's not a name brand like Armani. She's a kid on a budget. Where is your perspective?
I'm all for photographers rights but dude, you suck at this.
You're a nobody, a guy with a camera, best case a student without a school. You did the shoot as much for the experience as she did. In a collaboration like this it's for everyone's benefit. The photographer gains experience and images for their portfolio, the model gains experience and some headshots, and the designer and makeup get images for their book. And if you play it nice someone in that circle will get a referral when a check is in the air. You pretty much made the whole thing about you being the only person able to gain. You've been reading too many forum posts about playing professional photographer expecting money for this and that. Everyone starts somewhere and that's where you are, the starting gate, especially if you're still working with students, you haven't yet moved on to being a pro.
These industries are small, very few people make it and those that do keep the circle tight. You haven't even started and you already have a bad reputation. I'd bet that the model who will no longer work with you has spread the word to a few of her friends. And spreading a reputation for being uncooperative and difficult to work with is not slander. You can't sue for badmouthing, only for slander, and it's only slander if it isn't true.
First and foremost get a lawyer, you now through your everything is about money motivation about to cost yourself a lot of money, even if you win you will lose based upon what this is going to cost you. Secondly don't do anything more and in particular anything suggested by tjr3000. Taking actions after a lawsuit has been filed is immediate grounds for the judge to set aside all of your everything in favor of the plaintiff.
Swoop: I thought about that. But from what others are saying is that she has rubbed others the wrong way. Which is why other students have refused to work with her. ( I found out about this after). She has a reputation of trying to freeload off of other students.
Davenfl: I'll wait until after small claims court. Apparently, can't use a lawyer at smalls claim court. IF the judegement is for the plantiff, I can then appeal and have grounds to retain a lawyer. I figured I'll cross that bridge when I need to.
+1 to above. There's a whole slew of mistakes made on this deal. But I don't see how one goes from a $20 photoshoot to a $26 copyright release to a $9000 lawsuit. Obviously you pissed in her cornflakes and she's operating on "principle", just as you were. Document your case well. You do NOT want to get into a he-said/she-said pissing match in front of a commissioner. I can see a little bit of that coming from you when you mentioned her classmates refusing to work with her. Nobody in small claims is going to care about personality or intentions...you're not going to be given that much time to make your case. The only thing the court is going to care about is if there was a valid contract in place, if any provisions of that contract were breached, and if any damages are applicable.
Swoop: I thought about that. But from what others are saying is that she has rubbed others the wrong way. Which is why other students have refused to work with her. ( I found out about this after). She has a reputation of trying to freeload off of other students.
Davenfl: I'll wait until after small claims court. Apparently, can't use a lawyer at smalls claim court. IF the judegement is for the plantiff, I can then appeal and have grounds to retain a lawyer. I figured I'll cross that bridge when I need to....Show more →
You should have known about her reputation before working with her.
You've already crossed that bridge, it's way behind you. Seeking counsel isn't about having a court representative. Even if the attorney can't represent you in small claims, his legal advice beforehand can help your chances for a good outcome.
I could have sworn that I had commented on this thread way back when, but I must be mistaken. In any event, I think both parties are being petty and immature, but the photographer here especially so, particularly for someone just starting out. Like Doug, I went to Art Center as well, and we ALL traded when we started out. Then, when paying jobs started happening, we used the people we'd been practicing with and everyone benefitted. You have to give a little to get a little, and doing someone a favor in a case like this is never going to be a bad thing. This is a really really bad way to start a career, if that's where you're headed. Reputations matter and lifelong relationships matter even more if you expect to make it in this business.
I'll add one more thing peripherally related. When I started hiring professional models from the agencies in L.A., I made sure that I paid the agencies immediately - often before I had even gotten the invoice from the agency. You have no idea how well that went over with both the talent and the agencies themselves. It got me many favors and much better access to better talent, which, in turn, makes your job both easier and more professional. You do NOT get access to the best models when you are first starting out.
Wow, sorry to hear about your troubles. Sounds like you need both legal cousel and errors & omissions insurance also. Again sorry about your troubles I pray it all works out well for you.
Davenfl: I'll wait until after small claims court. Apparently, can't use a lawyer at smalls claim court. IF the judegement is for the plantiff, I can then appeal and have grounds to retain a lawyer. I figured I'll cross that bridge when I need to.
I'm pretty sure that in many states small claims courts you are not allowed to bring a lawyer, but you can opt to move it up to thext level of court where laywers are welcomed. Handy if a family member is a lawyer. You also cannot appeal the decision just because you don't like the outcome there must be a legal reason for the appeal.
Unless you have $9000 plus court cost to lose, you better get real legal advice from places other than here! Heck who knows if I know what I'm talking about.
Is $9000 still small claims? My how times have changed!
Whoever was right or wrong up front doesn't matter now.
Her claims have to have some basis in the contract, and in actual financial costs to her.
Given that most of the pre-shoot contract was verbal, any documented e-mail exchanges will form the basis of what will hold up as a contract in the claim. Look closely both at what they say, and how they could be interpreted without any knowledge of the verbal part or history.
I would talk with an attorney to find out where you stand in regards to contract law. I would assume at most you are liable for $20 that she may have paid you, and to waive the $26 that you sought to charge her. Which you could potential justify as material costs, or incremental costs to prep files for print.
It sounds like you also better clearly document how your web site worked, that you never sold images, and that they were for your portfolio. There should be no way in which the images are not usable for your portfilio. If you have even used them for taht purpose?
I have seen this many times with low end, beginning models, designers, etc. More with friends who are photogs, but these people have big ego's and no idea how the industry works,
One friend was fighting with a model that wanted a large percentage of sales from any image for eternity. Can you imagine traying to jkeep track of college student for 30 years - and you know the image really has no value. Stuff like that.
Anyway, find out your maximum exposure. Document what you can. Explain your case soley within the bounds of what is documented. Be calm and professional. Stick to facts. Don't get mad, don't escalate, let teh designer be the one all over the place with weird claims.
Chalk it up as a learning experience. But don't communicate with the person taking you to court if she is wacko, just work through an attorney.
