models rights

shaundesigner

shaundesigner

Messages
1,008
Name
Shaun
Edit My Images
Yes
ok guys,

who knows what rights a model has over there photos??


can a photographer keep the photos of a model if she requests them? and is willing to pay for them.

as a friend is unsure what to do,,

the photographer has refused to give the photos
 
I believe the law says that the photographer owns all rights to the images not the model - as such he can refuse to let her use them.

However he cannot use them commercially without a model release.

Was she paid for the shoot? If she was then I can't see why she'd expect the images for her own use. However if she wasn't paid it only seems fair that the photographer would allow her to use the images for personal use [ie portfolio, her own website etc..].


..
 
My opinion is that..

If the model was paid by the photographer, the photographer owns copyright but should give a small selection of edited photos for the models self promotion.

If it was a TFP/CD shoot then the model should obviously get what was agreed - but there should be a selection of edited photos for the models use preferably unwatermarked.

If the model pays the photographer, then it should obviously be arranged before hand but the model should receive edited photos, maybe all the unedits (within reason i.e no blink shots) but not required.

Bottom line is, a model should receive some photos for self promotion - in effect a license to use them not the copyright.

Again all this should normally be arranged before a shoot.

Thats all my own opinion though.
 
Is there any particular reason he is refusing to give her copies of the images?

I'm guessing here but did the photographer expect this to be like any other paid portrait shoot in that she would buy prints, but now she wants the digital files?
 
Did they not have a contract? WHat did they agree beforehand? Does she have any emails/anything in writing?
 
The copyright always is with the author, and depending on the agreement / terms of the sale the work can be licensed / sold to the model (or third party provided there is a model release, or for editorial).

So it depends what she paid for. It could be just the photo session, CD, prints or any combination. The client does not normally get redistribution rights unless agreed in the TOC.
 
Without knowing exactly what was arranged before hand it's pretty well impossible to give any reliable answer.
 
SW said:
the shoot was paid for by the model
Click to expand...

I guess it depends what they agreed beforehand, but I'm not sure why she'd pay for the session if she was not going to get any photos out of it? :thinking:

I know nothing about this in any capacity but that seems odd to me
 
akr said:
I guess it depends what they agreed beforehand, but I'm not sure why she'd pay for the session if she was not going to get any photos out of it? :thinking:

I know nothing about this in any capacity but that seems odd to me
Click to expand...

Not really - I do portrait photography and people pay me a sitting fee. That gets them my time for the shoot and the processing of the proofs for presentation, they don't get any images from it unless they purchase them specifically.
 
Foggy said:
Not really - I do portrait photography and people pay me a sitting fee. That gets them my time for the shoot and the processing of the proofs for presentation, they don't get any images from it unless they purchase them specifically.
Click to expand...

Excuse me if I'm being stupid, which is very possible, but what is proof for presentation v actual print \ image on a CD? :)
 
This isn't going to sound good, but it sounds like the photographer is trying to pull a fast one. The reason I say that is model pays for sitting, model wants to buy images, photographer refuses to sell images - it sounds like the photographer wanted to make a fast buck, by charging a sitting and not allowing the person to buy the images. (Perhaps the photographer wasn't happy with them and doesn't want to reimburse by refund or reshoot, or the intention was to physically take the photos but never process the images, therefore charging only for the shoot, or something completely different - but whatever it is, they're not doing themselves any favours).

If the model paid for the sitting, that means that she wants images, whether part of the deal or bought seperately, the models intention was to get some images.
 
Foggy said:
Not really - I do portrait photography and people pay me a sitting fee. That gets them my time for the shoot and the processing of the proofs for presentation, they don't get any images from it unless they purchase them specifically.
Click to expand...

well this is it he has also told her that its £20 a print and she said fine and is willing to pay the fee,

its very strange to me i would rip her hand off for £20 a print thats not to bad in my eyes
 
dseered said:
So she paid and he refuses to give the images ?
Click to expand...

yeah basicaly,

there was no contract, she said it was very inperfessional (if thats a word)
and nothing was actauly agreed by the photographer except what sort of shoot she wanted,

how ever she did speak to him previously saying this shoot would be for her portfolio.......
 
okay, so the shoot was paid for by the model. Does this mean that the model paid the photographer to take pictures for her to use in her portfolio or for any other use?
Or, did the photographer choose the model and pay for her time?
If it was the former, then the photographer should be handing over some prints, or a CD to the model. However, if it was the latter, then the photographer does not have to give her any of the photos, although I personally think that this does not help a professional relationship between photographer and model. Incidently, do you think Kate Moss receives a CD after every photoshoot!?
 
no i dont however i see that as a completely different situation.....

the model was looking for a photographer

photographers look for kate moss......

all the model wanted was some photos for her portfolio and he is refusing to hand some over
 
MagicMynx said:
I doubt Kate Moss pays for the photoshoot. :shrug:
Click to expand...

My point is, if a photographer books a model for a shoot, it is more than likely for a particular campaign that the photographer is shooting for, so the images would used by the company/ advertising agency etc...
There should have been clear intentions by both parties in the onset, and contracts and model releases should have been drafted.
 
see this is what i thought as i have a shoot soon with the same model, and before i heard what has happened, i was trying to find some pre made forms.


so i can cover may rear end...

but to answer your question she seeked the photographer...
 
SW said:
no i dont however i see that as a completely different situation.....

the model was looking for a photographer

photographers look for kate moss......

all the model wanted was some photos for her portfolio and he is refusing to hand some over
Click to expand...

In this case then, the photographer should be producing some prints or giving her a CD of images as she has paid for a service.
It's like buying something in a shop and never getting it! If he is running a small business, this would clearly be a case for trading standards!
 
SW said:
well this is it he has also told her that its £20 a print and she said fine and is willing to pay the fee,

its very strange to me i would rip her hand off for £20 a print thats not to bad in my eyes
Click to expand...

I'm a bit confused what the dispute is about then...

Model paid photographer for the shoot (ie, time and processing).
Photographer wants £20 per print, model has agreed to this.

Next step is the model chooses some shots, photographer prints them and everyone's happy...

What's happening in this situation to cause a problem? Is she asking for the digital files? All the files? Free prints? It sounds like something's changed that we don't know about from the details here.

If the shoot was done on a TFP/TFCD basis then that's different and your friend needs to carry out their part of the deal.
 
SW said:
all the model wanted was some photos for her portfolio and he is refusing to hand some over
Click to expand...

By this, do you meant that

the photographer is refusing to give her any photographs from the set

or

the photographer is refusing to give her some specific photographs from the set
 
smithphoto said:
My point is, if a photographer books a model for a shoot, it is more than likely for a particular campaign that the photographer is shooting for, so the images would used by the company/ advertising agency etc...
There should have been clear intentions by both parties in the onset, and contracts and model releases should have been drafted.
Click to expand...

But the photographer didn't book the model, it was the other way around ;)

It sounds like the model has been conned TBH. Get her to go to CAB for some legal advice. She wanted photographs taken and wanted images, booking & paying for a photographer for a sitting is saying "I want some images this is the fee for the sitting" the images depends on what was agreed, some will be bundled in with some sittings, others are completely seperate (as above, photographer said £20 per image). They didn't have a written contract, but they did have an unwritten one, which was that the photographer would provide a service and the model would pay for it. By not letting her buy the images, the service hasn't been forfilled.

I don't understand why they won't sell the images though - unless they're very poor and the photographer doesn't want to reshoot/refund. It doesn't do them any favours no matter which way you look at it.
 
Send the Boys round...

Reading all the posts, it looks like the shoot was initiated by the Model for the purpose of getting Portfolio images.
She paid the Photographer for the shoot.
The Photographer then said it was an additional £20 per print (...print? who wants prints these days? Get them on disk and print them yourself at a High-Street lab for £2.00 each).
Photographer is now not handing over any images at all...

...or a refund?

If there was nothing in writing, it'd be hard to prove anything had even occurred - the Phot might just deny the shoot ever took place.

A quick visit to the local builder's merchants for some stout metal-pipe sounds like the only recourse.
 
There are loads online...do a Google...
Use one as a template and generate your own, specific to the requirements of the shoot.
 
Sounds to me that you need some proof that the shot took place.

Then go to the Citizens Advice Bureau. Explain to them what happened. They will usually have a quick chat for free.

You should have at least been offered a receipt for the service. If not, then the photographer is not acting legally. There may be no record of this transaction having taken place in order for income tax to have been paid. You could get them into a lot of trouble for that. Did the model pay by cash, or by cheque/credit card. The last options there at least give the model some proof that the transaction took place.
As MagicMinx says, by commissioning the shoot, the model at least has the expectation that there will be some service performed at the end of it. If it is not explicitly stated, there in the implication that the standard service would allow for the production of photographs at the end. The fact that you have [agreed?] a price per photograph should mean that they are made available. Note though, that the expectation is that the photographs should be available in one form. You cannot expect the images to be on CD or other, unless the photographer thinks that this will be easier for them.

Are these images in any way, compromising, to either the model or the photographer? I assume that the model has at least seen proof that there was 'film' in the camera?
 
So he offered her prints for £20 a pop but now doesn't want to deliver them?

To me it sounds like he's lost the images somehow and doesn't want to admit it. Makes no sense otherwise that he wouldn't sell the prints.

Arkady said:
The Photographer then said it was an additional £20 per print (...print? who wants prints these days? Get them on disk and print them yourself at a High-Street lab for £2.00 each).
Click to expand...

If someone wants digital versions of the images from one of my photoshoots it will cost more than getting me to print them!

akr said:
Excuse me if I'm being stupid, which is very possible, but what is proof for presentation v actual print \ image on a CD? :)
Click to expand...

After a portrait session I will run through the images, pick out what I consider to be the best 30-40, do a quick edit on them, clean up the backgrounds etc. These then get presented to the clients on a projector and also a flash based web gallery with copyright logos on them. From those the client picks the images that they wish to purchase along with the sizes they want and I will then process those images fully before sending them off to the printers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top