copyright infringment

K

kaps

Messages
5
Name
kaps
Edit My Images
Yes
Dear Members, we need your advise on one of the issues we are dealing with at a moment.

We recently did a photoshoot in collaboration with Photographer, costume providers, models and makeup artists. This was TFP shoot. There was no formal agreement made, but everything was on chat where photographer confirmed its a TFP.

Shoot went ahead, we got our first set of edited photographs by the photographer via dropbox. We used it on social media and gave credit in each photo. Even the photographer posted a update on social media about the shoot, so all was good. Now as we were due for our second set of photographs, the photographer stop responding to our call and emails. Rather to our surprise I got a mail from photographer saying we are doing copyright infringement as we have use the pictures on social media and has sent us the invoice to pay some amount or delete all the pictures from social media. My question is, is this correct are we really doing copyright infringement here ? Do we have any rights to use the photos and ask for the other set of pictures ? We were also never asked to not share the photos by the photographer. Can you advise what shall we do ?

Mail from photographer
"With regards to your publishing of my photos, as well as adding your watermark and editing the photos. You are infringing my copyright, as no permission was given by myself and the photos in question were exclusively for magazine editorials. You have made no effort to remove the photos in question from the various social media platforms. You have two options:
1. Remove all of my photos from the web that you have uploaded within 24 hours.
2. Pay for a commercial license to continue using my photos (invoice attached)."
 
TFP ~ Time For Print

An exchange by mutual agreement by a model giving his/her time to a photographer in exchange for (a great) set of pictures . Generally AFAIK the pictures are intended as portfolio use only by both parties.
 
TFP = “Time for print” means photographs in exchange for model time. Quite common for photographers and models building their portfolios.
 
kaps said:
Dear Members, we need your advise on one of the issues we are dealing with at a moment.

We recently did a photoshoot in collaboration with Photographer, costume providers, models and makeup artists. This was TFP shoot. There was no formal agreement made, but everything was on chat where photographer confirmed its a TFP.

Shoot went ahead, we got our first set of edited photographs by the photographer via dropbox. We used it on social media and gave credit in each photo. Even the photographer posted a update on social media about the shoot, so all was good. Now as we were due for our second set of photographs, the photographer stop responding to our call and emails. Rather to our surprise I got a mail from photographer saying we are doing copyright infringement as we have use the pictures on social media and has sent us the invoice to pay some amount or delete all the pictures from social media. My question is, is this correct are we really doing copyright infringement here ? Do we have any rights to use the photos and ask for the other set of pictures ? We were also never asked to not share the photos by the photographer. Can you advise what shall we do ?

Mail from photographer
"With regards to your publishing of my photos, as well as adding your watermark and editing the photos. You are infringing my copyright, as no permission was given by myself and the photos in question were exclusively for magazine editorials. You have made no effort to remove the photos in question from the various social media platforms. You have two options:
1. Remove all of my photos from the web that you have uploaded within 24 hours.
2. Pay for a commercial license to continue using my photos (invoice attached)."
Click to expand...

Tricky situation for both parties. TFP is a general expression and usually still needs to have a written agreement to define what it means in terms of what images you can expect and how you can use them. Editing and watermarking the photographers pictures without asking probably didn’t help the situation.

What to do now? I would try one more time to communicate with the photographer, something like - We really liked your photographs and were therefore surprised and disappointed to receive your message and invoice. we understood the TFP agreement means we could edit and use the photos as we wished. Please could you clarify your understanding of our TFP agreement? In the meantime we have taken down the images while we seek to clarify. we would like to resolve this situation and would like to continue working with you in the future.

Copyright laws vary by country and if you get into a legal debate you will need to take proper legal advice for where you are based.
 
Is it as simple as, 'there was no contract, therefor you have no right to use the images'? Copyright and usage rights are determined by the photographer?
 
I think a key phrase here may be... "as well as adding your watermark and editing the photos."
 
kaps said:
We were also never asked to not share the photos by the photographer.
Click to expand...
That is not the same as giving permission. If you were offered TFP, that is not the same as the right to copy, edit or watermark. I am with the photographer (mostly) but you need to remember the old adage: "A verbal contract is not worth the paper it is written on."
 
john.margetts said:
That is not the same as giving permission. If you were offered TFP, that is not the same as the right to copy, edit or watermark. I am with the photographer (mostly) but you need to remember the old adage: "A verbal contract is not worth the paper it is written on."
Click to expand...

This

Why did the o.p edit the photographers photos height of ignorance and was a sure fire way to upset him.
 
Thank you all the members for your advice. The watermark was added to protect anyone else using the photos as there was no watermark from the photographer. An absolute credit was given to any picture of the photographer, there was not even a single picture where credit to everyone wasnt given. The point was, whosoever will use the picture could add their labels/watermark on the pictures and give credit to all other participants, not sure if that is not the correct approach ?

Also in case if this was the issue then we should have been told about it, rather we are trying to contact her in every possible way but we have been blocked. Our phone numbers blocked, facebook blocked, insta blocked, not sure what does that mean.
Another point to note, is we were given first set of edited pictures via dropbox along with the preview pictures. We never used preview pictures as photographer was still due to edit those. We were told to select pictures from those preview ones and then they will retouch it and send us back.
 
For editing the picture, we were given the first set of pictures and we discussed that some modifications are required but then suddenly we stopped getting messages.
And when it says editing picture, we just did toned the colour down of face makeup as thats exactly what we needed. If photographer had any issues then either she should have told us that she is happy or not happy, we gave her all the credit without any hiding. The intention everytime was that everyone involved should get benefit of the work, we even mentioned that if photographer liked some other picture which we dont like they can use that with no issues as they know better for their business.
 
kaps said:
Thank you all the members for your advice. The watermark was added to protect anyone else using the photos as there was no watermark from the photographer. An absolute credit was given to any picture of the photographer, there was not even a single picture where credit to everyone wasnt given. The point was, whosoever will use the picture could add their labels/watermark on the pictures and give credit to all other participants, not sure if that is not the correct approach ?

Also in case if this was the issue then we should have been told about it, rather we are trying to contact her in every possible way but we have been blocked. Our phone numbers blocked, facebook blocked, insta blocked, not sure what does that mean.
Another point to note, is we were given first set of edited pictures via dropbox along with the preview pictures. We never used preview pictures as photographer was still due to edit those. We were told to select pictures from those preview ones and then they will retouch it and send us back.
Click to expand...


You are in the wrong. Just pay the invoice!
 
What capacity where you involved with the shoot and (apart from the editing thing) how have you used the images?
 
The general agreement for TFP shoots is everyone contributes so everyone benefits but that’s not legally binding without a written afreement. What and how did you agree things upfront?
 
boyfalldown said:
The general agreement for TFP shoots is everyone contributes so everyone benefits but that’s not legally binding without a written afreement. What and how did you agree things upfront?
Click to expand...

@boyfalldown hi Hugh ^^ afreement ??? I thought this was a typo but googling does show it up in some quite old or foreign legal documents! So was it a typo, if not what is the full definition because i could not find one.
 
DemiLion said:
What capacity where you involved with the shoot and (apart from the editing thing) how have you used the images?
Click to expand...
@kaps - You're new here so when you get conflicting advice from different people you won't know how much weight to place on it. I'd suggest you pay heed to what Mark / @DemiLion says though. He knows his onions.

I am not a professional photographer, and I am not a lawyer, so take everything I say with a pinch of salt.

Bu anyway - I'm sure you appreciate that, in the absence of an explicit agreement to the contrary, copyright is owned by the photographer. This basically means that the photographer has the sole right to use the images, and the photographer may choose to grant rights (licences) to other parties to use, to modify, or to sub-licence the use of the images.

In your situation there's nothing to suggest that copyright is not owned by the photographer. But you say there is a (documented if vague) TFP agreement. So I think that would be construed as giving the parties who contributed to the creation of the images some rights over those images. The question is, what rights?

In the absence of any more explicit agreement, it seems reasonable to me to assume that the rights which you have been granted are those which would be customary for TFP agreements. So everybody involved would have the right to use the images in their portfolios, i.e. for self-promotion.

But that's where it would stop. You would not have the right to modify the images. You would not have the right to add a watermark. I think you are clearly in the wrong there. You would not have the right to use the images beyond your portfolio. You haven't explained the context in which you used the images on social media, but you may be in the wrong there too.

So I think you need to accept that you are in the wrong, and you need to deal with the photographer with that thought in mind. Where it goes from there, I don't know. I am not a lawyer.
 
Last edited:
kaps said:
....There was no formal agreement made, but everything was on chat where photographer confirmed its a TFP....
Click to expand...
If this is true, and you have proof, then I would say the photographer is wrong. But it's a typical mess and probably not worth the effort (on anyone's part).

Without something to the contrary the assumption would be a verbal contract for a TFP shoot with the basic minimum standard agreements... Which would be that the photographer releases/provides the images to the other party (parties) for portfolio/social media use in exchange for their time/services. Simply placing the images online does not qualify as "publishing"... however, if you distribute the images online (i.e. enable downloading of copies) it would be.

Putting some form of watermark on the images would not be an issue as long as an original watermark wasn't removed/replaced and full/obvious credit was given (i.e. it's obvious the watermark is not claiming authorship). Additionally, minor edits are perfectly acceptable/legal (i.e. cropping to suit the format)... even rather significant edits may be acceptable.
 
It does seem rather odd that, according to the OP, the photographer appears to have severed all forms of communication regarding this matter when dialogue could possibly have come to an amicable outcome.
 
Giblets said:
It does seem rather odd that, according to the OP, the photographer appears to have severed all forms of communication regarding this matter when dialogue could possibly have come to an amicable outcome.
Click to expand...

Nor has the OP @kaps come back with more context about the arrangements (verbal or otherwise) re @DemiLion Mark's questions. He or she (sorry if I missed the OP's gender?) has not even given any indication to what country he/she is located.................cannot assume UK as TP has many international members. NB No idea if a TFP arrangement in general terms is the same around the world.
 
I think there is a general assumption by your average jo that if the product of the shoot is to be a "portfolio" for "self promotion", that form may not necessarily be a print.
Its not difficult to see how this assumption is formed when most of the planet uses social media as their primary self promotion tool.
Its wrong of course, but that's the World we're living in and the reason we have a zillion threads a week about problems with images posted on the internet.
The days of binders full of prints being carted about from one place to another are reserved for niche presentations, people with no experience of the industry and who are used to doing what they want with anything they find online, just......assume.
I think mebbe photographers need to up their game a bit with regards to terms of use and the documentation of it, at the moment they don't have to do anything except bitch about improper use after the fact, I don't think that is entirely fair.
Would the client have even run with the TFP shoot if they had known they couldn't use the product of it on social media.....I dunno, there will always be somebody trying to pull a fast one I suppose.
 
Box Brownie said:
Nor has the OP @kaps come back with more context about the arrangements (verbal or otherwise) re @DemiLion Mark's questions. He or she (sorry if I missed the OP's gender?) has not even given any indication to what country he/she is located.................cannot assume UK as TP has many international members. NB No idea if a TFP arrangement in general terms is the same around the world.
Click to expand...
Op is British as evidenced by spelling 'colour' properly, but should have the sense to mention that in the first post.
 
john.margetts said:
Op is British as evidenced by spelling 'colour' properly, but should have the sense to mention that in the first post.
Click to expand...

Could be, but not certain as many countries using British English spellings, including commonwealth
 
newbie1 said:
Could be, but not certain as many countries using British English spellings, including commonwealth
Click to expand...

DemiLion said:
Australia, NZ and Canada all spell 'colour' with a 'u'.
Click to expand...

And various other countries where British English is taught.

Not nit picking but the OP has spelt used advise not advice in the opening sentence..............but that is surely a non linguistically related variation???
 
Just to stop the thread going off on a tangent, the OP is posting from the UK. ;)
 
Last edited:
Thank You Stewart and all other fellow members who are responding here.
Sorry as I missed some more details whilst my post, I answer here some of your queries:
1) Social Media use -- I am a makeup artist and I show my work by posting it on page on Facebook and Insta. I also have a website but pictures were not uploaded there.
2) Editing - Watermarking -- I may be wrong as you have suggested but my point here is at least we should have been told that you can use or cannot use our own watermark. We added the watermark as we do it on all our picture on our FB page just to save it from anyone picking them up. I understand I may be wrong but the intention and reason behind the watermark is just as genuine as it could get. I have over 100 pictures of my work and they all are watermark. This case was the same and we did not hide the photographer work or have not cut their watermark. There wasn't a watermark from photographer and putting up that photograph was a risk. We gave the credit to the photographer so no bad intentions to be honest.
3)Editing -- Yes we did edit the photos, but it was TFP and all involved must be happy for the photos that are coming out. The editing that was done by the photographer wasnt working for us, and the photographer was not responding so we had no choice to tone down the color. It was the minor editing but yes it will come under the heading of "Editing".
4) TFP agreement -- Yes we dont have the formal agreement but we have everything on the chat from the photographer and some bits on the email. The photographer shared the first set of edited pictures with us, why would those pictures would be shared if they were not intended to be posted by us.
5) Use of photos -- We dont sell pictures, as a makeup artist I just show my work on my page and on my website.
6) I am a UK based makeup artist.

I am mum of 2 and a makeup artist which just started to get into the industry. I organised everything from months, right from the concept, couture, jewelry and then spending fortune of the time on the day. Also with me the Models agreed for TFP spent whole day with no money involved, its bad on their time as well. We may be wrong somewhere but it is not ethical and we feel cheated. If there was anything wrong one should call and discuss. We have been blocked on phones/FB/Insta so there is no way we could discuss to understand what made the photographer unhappy. To us it looks more of the planned exercise, as we still have 100s of photos with her and they are the main shoot pictures. The one shared with us were not the priority at all.
 
To add, this was our first ever shoot. I still have the pictures on insta/FB giving credit, so we were as transparent as we could.
 
@kaps I’m sorry to hear your story. Blocking off communication channels seems odd behavior by the photographer. They may well be annoyed by your watermarks and editing but surely they need happy customers? I’m not sure what could rescue the situation. Personally I do think you should take down the pics. Keeping them up will not help repair the relationship which be your only chance to access the remaining pictures and you will probably need to pay.

It’s a tough lesson learned. Really need to get the details of any agreement like this in writing in advance.

Good luck.
 
kaps said:
Thank You Stewart and all other fellow members who are responding here.
Sorry as I missed some more details whilst my post, I answer here some of your queries:
Click to expand...
I don't see where you did anything that was necessarily wrong or infringing of the photographer's rights.

I have to assume the photographer is rather inexperienced with this as well. The main thing is the TFP agreement/contract. It is well accepted that the industry norm with TFP and digital files is that the images will be used for website (portfolio) and social media... otherwise the photographer should deliver actual prints as we did before digital (and where the phrase originated). If this were to go to court I believe you would win (from what has been said). But it's a no win situation really as money and relationships will be thrown away by all parties.

IMO, this is all due to inexperience and a lack of clear communication/understanding by all parties... that's what written contracts are for, to help prevent these types of things.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top