[micromacro]

The whole situation puzzles me, so I want to ask you, guys.
Long story short, I've been assisting with photo shoot, and also took the pictures of the model behind scenes, and after the shoot because I've been asked to cover the process outside. No prob for me, I just did a favor to the photog I assisted.

But the model has quite interesting belief that all pictures she receives are kind of hers. When she received pictures from the shoot , she cropped them, re-edited, and posted on her fbook without crediting the photographer. I told him that it was good she did not mention him at all, because her editing was simply horrible. Embarrassment for any pro, to be exact. Embarrassment for me as well.
Then we discovered that she does it to others as well, and she had issues with other photographers because of that.

Today she did it to my pictures which I sent to her privately. She cropped, totally blurred like a baby doll , and posted on her timeline like hers. Because for me the photography is a hobby, with no damage for my reputation, I just laughed about it.

I wonder, when the model (or person pictured on photo), re-edits the picture without permission, and then don't credit the photographer, is it ok or big no? What do you think?

[Cardinal15]

It kind of depends on a lot of things. Ultimately the "client" can use the pictures unattributed as they see fit unless there are contractual limitations.If there is no limitation they don't need to credit anyone and why would they need permission to alter them in some way ? In the advertising world companies regularly alter pictures to achieve the product message they desire.You're visions might not be the same but really once you give them to her they're hers, just because you don't like her style or editing abilities does not mean you can tell her how to use them.You don't give enough information about the shoot or if there was any contract of any kind ,absent one why would you expect to retain control once you release them.

[JHfwp]

Not knowing what agreement she had with the photographer you were assisting, and the fact you had none with her, I wouldn't get too upset about it.

Now if she didn't even thank you for your work, or was unpleasant, then I might be annoyed. But, in the end, the fact she didn't credit you probably worked in your favor.

Maybe next time in lieu of giving up control of your digital files you could offer prints in exchange for the model's cooperation (and work to build a relationship with her, if you're looking to do more of that sort of work). The guy you assisted should have probably talked this over with you, but it seems not even photographers respect other photographers!

[micromacro]

You don't give enough information about the shoot or if there was any contract of any kind ,absent one why would you expect to retain control once you release them

1. She paid for the shoot with one pro, received edited and watermarked product, then terribly blurred herself trying to look 30 years younger, and posted that on her timeline with pro watermark. People assume that the pro did terrible editing. I don't know what type of contract they had, all I know it was pretty hot argument about it.

2. A friend of pro asked him to help that lady with her modeling portfolio for free. No contract, just sketchy agreement by words as I understood.
She knew that a pro will also post pictures of her on his site, with his watermark, she agreed with that. When she received the pictures, she cropped out watermark, blurred and posted crops on her timeline. However, she requested a pro to remove all pictures of her from his site because she does not like how she looks (read- not blurred like a plastic doll) . He got mad and told that he will not give her the rest of her pictures.

3. I don't care much what she does with my pictures, I just gave them away. I'm watching from the side, and learning )))

---------- Post added 07-20-17 at 10:28 PM ----------

But, in the end, the fact she didn't credit you probably worked in your favor.

Exactly! LOL

[clackers]

Well, a model release signed by both parties solves this. It might include a phrase that keeps the model happy, such as an image cannot be sold by the tog unless the model gives permission (read: gets fair payment), and another sought by the photographer (credit must be listed, or no alteration other than cropping).

In this day and age there's probably no excuse for not having an app like Easy Release on your phone where you've got a couple of prepared templates ready to go.

[maltfalc]

unless you (or any other photographer in this sort of situation) have signed over rights to the photos in a legally binding agreement, she can't do anything with them without your express permission. doesn't matter if you gave her prints or digital files. she can't take them to a print shop, post them on facebook with bad edits and missing watermarks, tell the photographer to take them down, any of that nonsense. if you're fine with her behaviour, that's entirely your call to make, but it's just going to encourage her to mistreat other photographers.

[ccc_]

this what I learned...
a contract

I executed some art for an ad campaign
the agreement was...no modification or editing without my input
of course it didn't work out that way

the next year I was asked work up some new art
I had a contract in hand that spelled out the product's usage
in other words a licensing agreement
the agreement required the signatures of all the event's management team

I controlled my work within the limits I was comfortable with and they received the output they wanted

[aslyfox]

A contract is certainly a good idea but:

any agreement - written or oral contract *** - is only good if

the parties are trustworthy enough to keep to it or

you are willing to go to the $ of going to court to enforce it

____________________

to win in the legal world

you must win in court a judgment for your damages - what are they? does your written contract have an " liquidated damages " clause -

" if this contract is breached ( broken ) the $$$ will be paid "

and you can collect those damages ( " you can't get blood out of a stone " )


*** = certain contracts are not enforceable unless in writing, a written contract can lessen confusion ( no guaranty there folks )

[clackers]

A contract is certainly a good idea but:

any agreement - written or oral contract *** - is only good if

the parties are trustworthy enough to keep to it or

you are willing to go to the $ of going to court to enforce it

____________________

to win in the legal world

you must win in court a judgment for your damages - what are they? does your written contract have an " liquidated damages " clause -

" if this contract is breached ( broken ) the $$$ will be paid "

and you can collect those damages ( " you can't get blood out of a stone " )


*** = certain contracts are not enforceable unless in writing, a written contract can lessen confusion ( no guaranty there folks )

I think what a contract does too, Aslyfox, is that if you insist on one the other party straight away gets the idea you aren't one of the other people they've taken advantage of in the past, you're a bit more aware than them.

I think if someone goes in to do say, a wedding, without one, they're asking for a lot of grief. Such a contract may even include the shot list, to stop arguments weeks later about coverage.

[aslyfox]

I think what a contract does too, Aslyfox, is that if you insist on one the other party straight away gets the idea you aren't one of the other people they've taken advantage of in the past, you're a bit more aware than them.

I think if someone goes in to do say, a wedding, without one, they're asking for a lot of grief. Such a contract may even include the shot list, to stop arguments weeks later about coverage.

I am not a doctor nor have I ever played one on screen large or small -

but I have been a licensed attorney since June of 1982

if you want to have a " standard " contract you can adapt as necessary

spend some time and $ consult a competent attorney/solicitor in your local jurisdiction for help

[ccc_]

I think what a contract does too, Aslyfox, is that if you insist on one the other party straight away gets the idea you aren't one of the other people they've taken advantage of in the past, you're a bit more aware than them.

I think if someone goes in to do say, a wedding, without one, they're asking for a lot of grief. Such a contract may even include the shot list, to stop arguments weeks later about coverage.

that was my intent and it worked

this stuff always relies on the integrity of the person across from you
I've gotten hosed a couple of times but generally agreements are honored

a for instance
a group used some bird shots for their newsletter
when they expanded their web presence they contacted me and asked for permission to use some
when the work was published it was attributed and copyrighted
it was a thoroughly pleasant experience

[Na Horuk]

I think in this case its better to collect the money and leave it alone, unless she is somehow making a bunch of money from those facebook posts of hers (likely not the case).
Yes, its about manners, but some people don't have those, and arguing with them certainly won't improve the situation.
But feel free to refuse to work with her in the future if it bothers you

[Wheatfield]

The whole situation puzzles me, so I want to ask you, guys.
Long story short, I've been assisting with photo shoot, and also took the pictures of the model behind scenes, and after the shoot because I've been asked to cover the process outside. No prob for me, I just did a favor to the photog I assisted.

But the model has quite interesting belief that all pictures she receives are kind of hers. When she received pictures from the shoot , she cropped them, re-edited, and posted on her fbook without crediting the photographer. I told him that it was good she did not mention him at all, because her editing was simply horrible. Embarrassment for any pro, to be exact. Embarrassment for me as well.
Then we discovered that she does it to others as well, and she had issues with other photographers because of that.

Today she did it to my pictures which I sent to her privately. She cropped, totally blurred like a baby doll , and posted on her timeline like hers. Because for me the photography is a hobby, with no damage for my reputation, I just laughed about it.

I wonder, when the model (or person pictured on photo), re-edits the picture without permission, and then don't credit the photographer, is it ok or big no? What do you think?

Since you don't mention if there is a usage agreement or model release, and if there are, what they say, it's kind of hard to say.
If there is no paperwork between the model and photographers, I expect she is in violation of copyright.
Remember, any legal advice you get on the internet is worth what you paid for it.

[micromacro]

I think in this case its better to collect the money and leave it alone, unless she is somehow making a bunch of money from those facebook posts of hers (likely not the case).
Yes, its about manners, but some people don't have those, and arguing with them certainly won't improve the situation.
But feel free to refuse to work with her in the future if it bothers you

Yep, that's all in general I told to my friend photog: just drop it, and move on. You can't take it back and demand money for the damage. There was no contract, and you just will waste time and nerves if you drown yourself in a conflict. Not worth it. Just never deal with her because she has no good manners, and frankly speaking, no class at all. She is not your problem, the guy who refers her to all his connections in the photography world has problem, she will ruin his reputation one by one. We are all adults, we take the bad experience with the grain of salt, and quickly step out for the best.
He took it kind of hard because it's the first time he deals with such an attitude.

I think it's educational. That's why I'm asking you here to explore more.

If I ever decide to move into paid work, I learned one thing: either write a good contract, or just pay for damages of all sorts if you did not. Right now I found girls for "practicing" posing, not professional models, no money involved, just simple exchange : I take shoots, they will get final edited jpegs.

I stress right away, that I offer them a freedom to request picture removal if they are not comfortable with the images (yes, out of my good heart ))), I will not use all those pictures for commercial purposes, will not sell them to a third party, but will post them online wherever I may need them to introduce myself as a photog. From their side, I expect them not to edit my edits the way they want. If they want different editing, it's better to let me know, and we will discuss it. I can give them files for a pro editor. I just don't want horrible edits to be associated with my name. I think it's fair for both parties if there is no money involved.

[wombat2go]

no class at all.

Sound like a nice soft lens would be in order.