Clients defacing images on social media

[BLPhotoMD]

Ok, so I recently photographed a portrait session for an awesome senior. We had a great connection, and had a blast together. I posted a couple of "sneak peeks" to facebook and instagram. My client has now taken these images and cropped my name out, and added ridiculous filters. She absolutely loves the images, and I know that she is simply naive...I dont want to ruin a good relationship, or damage my chances of getting good referrals, but it bothers the crap out of me to see this done to my images... i have attached the images that I am referring to...Any advice? Thanks!

 

[tirediron]

Call (NOT e-mail, text, etc) but actually TALK to her and her parents. Explain that you will be happy to re-process the images (within certain limits) once she's made her choice, but the images you posted were simply to allow her to have an advance look. Also, explain very carefully to her and her parents that what she did was illegal.

 

[frommrstomommy]

I voted yes because I see in your screen shot you don't have a disclaimer asking not to crop, edit, etc.. so unless you had in contract that the images were not to be altered I really don't see how you could say something. I understand the frustration plenty.. it has happened to me but I chose to let it go rather than potentially damage the relationship. The way I saw it was that the damage had already been done of people seeing the awful edited image they posted. lol

 

[sscarmack]

Where is the holy hell **** no!!!!

 

[Civchic]

My photographer has a "Images are the property of .... Do not crop, alter, or change them in any way. Please link to ... when sharing on social media" disclaimer on each and every facebook "sneak peak" she gives us.

 

[sm4him]

My photographer has a "Images are the property of .... Do not crop, alter, or change them in any way. Please link to ... when sharing on social media" disclaimer on each and every facebook "sneak peak" she gives us.

^THAT. It won't stop everyone--especially teens--but it will "keep honest folks honest."
I don't do a LOT of portrait work, but I *do* always, always make it very clear that the low-res images I give them to post online are not to be altered in any way, and that if they'd like a photo processed differently, I'll be happy to discuss that with them--though admittedly, there's not enough money on this planet to make me agree to put those filters on one of MY images.

 

[pgriz]

I guess this is where an obstrusive watermark over the center of the image has a place.

 

[enzodm]

Well, at least she cropped out your name, reputation is preserved

 

[tirediron]

I voted yes because I see in your screen shot you don't have a disclaimer asking not to crop, edit, etc.. so unless you had in contract that the images were not to be altered I really don't see how you could say something...

What's that old line about 'ignorance of the law'?

 

[Surgikill]

If she is buying the images they are hers correct? Can she not also revoke your right to use them if she is in them?

 

[tirediron]

If she is buying the images they are hers correct? Can she not also revoke your right to use them if she is in them?

In order: No, no, and no! Buying images is the same as buying software. You are paying for the right to use the image under an agreed-upon set of conditions. The photographer [normally] retains copyright and control over the image. The client, unless agreed to before hand has very little say.

 

[Surgikill]

Legally, or in your opinion @tirediron

 

[tirediron]

Legally, or in your opinion @tirediron

Legally. In North America (and more or less similarly in most countries whose legal system is based on British Common Law). Subject to prior agreements to the contrary, in this sort of work (Not "work for hire"), the photographer owns the copyright of the image. He or she can choose to relinquish that if desired, but not common. The photographer grants the client certain usage rights, such as the right to print if the client is paying for digital files, or the right to copy, the right to display, etc. The client is bound by various acts of IP law to adhere to those conditions, and cannot do with as they please. The fact that it's an image of them means not a whit in law.

 

[Surgikill]

I can understand that but what if the image of the person is used in a magazine article or something and the photographer gets paid for it? Do the people also get a percent of pay because it is a photo of them?

 

[tirediron]

Wholllllllllllllllle different ball of wax, but the short answer is, very, very unlikely. Read up on this famous landmark case from New York: Nussenzweig v. DiCorcia