Clients defacing images on social media

[gsgary]

Don't worry about it in the second shot she has made herself look larger

 

[orljustin]

How many repeat orders do you get when you sell the digital files?

The plumber doesn't charge a quarter everytime you use the new faucet. He charges appropriately for his service and moves on.

 

[Rudipides]

I thought her "defacement" was actually pretty well-done, and did not hurt the images much if at all.

I agree with Derrel. Looks like the girl has some artistic skills that could come in handy. I like the fact that she picked some patterns that match her dress. Looks good actually. Heck, I might even use her ideas with some seniors I will be shooting soon.

 

[pgriz]

And this is why this problem is wide-spread; "Oh, it's just a couple of images, I don't want to lose her as a client." Sorry, but IMO, this is wholly the wrong approach. You certainly don't need to go in, guns blazing, but it's important for you, and everyone else in the industry to make the effort, where you can, to stop this. Call her parents, explain to them how the law works, and that while you're mad, you don't want it to happen again. You could even offer to process some prints for her in a more "trendy" style.

Nb. This is NOT a problem when you sell prints!

The plumber doesn't charge a quarter everytime you use the new faucet. He charges appropriately for his service and moves on.

I am thinking the issue is whether the photographer is selling a service or a product (yes, I know it not so clean-cut, but bear with me for a moment).

If it's a service, then the business challenge is to present the situation as one where unique skills, training and equipment are used to provide a service that is not easily reproducible. Then the outcome of the service (in the form of digital files or paper prints) is irrelevant as it was the service that was being purchased.

If it's a product, then the ability to sell multiple copies or versions IS a key issue, and the product usually needs to be of a form that is not easily copied or reproduced. In the digital age, the barrier to reproduction is essentially gone, so we rely on the law to discourage people from making illegal copies, and techniques such as watermarks, etc.

This is in some ways similar to the way the music industry has evolved, with product sales (vinyl, tapes, and CDs) being make practically obsolete by the easy availability of digital files, whether official (ie, with digital right management) or unofficial (essentially pirated). The law as written says the music companies are right, but that's not helping their bottom lines, and they are being forced to rethink the way music is packaged and distributed. Image-making is about the same, with the arrival of digital files.

So the challenge for the musicians is to go back to live music shows as the primary revenue generator, with supplementary revenue from download rights. The photographers may have to adopt a similar approach, in that the money is made at the "live" session, with some additional revenue possible from download rights and print sales after the fact. I'm thinking that "prints" are fast becoming the thing that you put on a wall, or bind into a photobook, but I don't know who in this day and age actually has a photo album of individual prints. So the print sale method of earning money may well be obsolete.

 

[snowbear]

The plumber doesn't charge a quarter everytime you use the new faucet. He charges appropriately for his service and moves on.

This is not a valid comparison - the plumber does not own the trademark on the faucet, he merely resells and installs it. As it has been pointed out before, in most cases, the photographer owns the image via the copyright.

 

[Derrel]

A brilliant response by pgriz in post #34; a post that reflects the realities of the digital age, and addresses the fact that current laws and the "old ways" of working by shooting cheaply then selling high mark-up prints have both lost a huge amount of traction.

 

[pgriz]

A brilliant response by pgriz in post #34; a post that reflects the realities of the digital age, and addresses the fact that current laws and the "old ways" of working by shooting cheaply then selling high mark-up prints have both lost a huge amount of traction.

Thank you, Derrel, but I think you're being kind. However, if we pursue the basic idea that photographers now need to make money off the upfront session, then the way to distinguish oneself from the competition may be to package the session as an event, perhaps complete with makeup artist, fancy transportation to and from the shoot location, a special location that is usually NOT accessible to the public, a few refreshments along the way (and we're not talking water bottles here), and the kind of pampering that the "exclusive" shops know how to deliver. Following this idea, why not prepare a set of images that you will finish editing WITH your customer, so they see the crazy-complex tools you use to bring out the best in the images? Of course, I'd suggest you do a preliminary pass and get rid of all the clunkers and most of the so-so images, so that the editing exercise is looking at the best 100 or so. I know this is not the way most photographers approach the editing, but why not get the client involved and set them to show you their preferences? Then, they will definitely take "ownership" of the images. And if the "final" versions are exported as images suitable for web display, then there's a good chance they'll come back for additional processing for the "print" versions, should they want to go that way.

I dunno. I'm seeing all kind of opportunities here for the people who want to make an engaging experience for their customers that will bring in much in the way of word-of-mouth referrals.

In my contracting work, I sell the materials "at cost", but earn my money on the labour (ie, experience, skill, expertise, and competence). When someone is underpricing me, it's pretty easy to point out that they are skimping on key details. I will show them the estimating program, and go with them through the steps needed to achieve the end-result. It becomes obvious where the time ISN'T being spent. To the person looking for quality, those things become deal-breakers. For the ones who just want the lowest price... they get what they pay for.

 

[Derrel]

I think the client's two dressed up images actually are improvements over the original images, at least in terms of the location the shots were shown (social media), and also for the demographic of the client (high school senior beginning her senior year, so 17- or 18 year-old female). The term "defacing images" doesn't really seem entirely accurate to me, but rather seems that the client took images that were not quite what she really, truly wanted, and modified them ever so slightly to be images more appropriate to a 2014, smartphone-era, twenty-first century high school girl's needs/wants. The original images are simply not in line with the photo sharing/display norms of this century, among young females. This is the era of custom, user-applied bedazzling on clothing, and fingernails with outlandish paint and jeweling, and custom everything. She took plain, unadorned images, and added some borders. She added some "fun" to the product. She took a bit of her own self, her own creativity, and put her own, personalized imprint on the images that represent HER or HER social media outlets...she didn't "deface" the images so much as customized them. Maybe there's a lesson to be learned from her actions?

 

[orljustin]

I think the client's two dressed up images actually are improvements over the original images, at least in terms of the location the shots were shown (social media), and also for the demographic of the client (high school senior beginning her senior year, so 17- or 18 year-old female). The term "defacing images" doesn't really seem entirely accurate to me, but rather seems that the client took images that were not quite what she really, truly wanted, and modified them ever so slightly to be images more appropriate to a 2014, smartphone-era, twenty-first century high school girl's needs/wants. The original images are simply not in line with the photo sharing/display norms of this century, among young females. This is the era of custom, user-applied bedazzling on clothing, and fingernails with outlandish paint and jeweling, and custom everything. She took plain, unadorned images, and added some borders. She added some "fun" to the product. She took a bit of her own self, her own creativity, and put her own, personalized imprint on the images that represent HER or HER social media outlets...she didn't "deface" the images so much as customized them. Maybe there's a lesson to be learned from her actions?

Exactly. It's getting to be the time where a portrait photographer needs to be able to give the clients what they want, which is material they can use as their facebook profile, filter it up a bit for instagram, put it in a shutterfly book for their senior year, etc. But, but, I want to charge for ink on paper! Well, today's generation doesn't care about carrying around paper, or keeping their images unadorned so you can find your next client. Heck, why not give them a disk of images with a folder of created backgrounds and actions for photoshop that they can use to have fun? They'll tell their friends and that's how you get business. Not because your prints are semi-glossy small grained from mpix.

 

[jamesbjenkins]

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?

I'm going to assume that you know absolutely nothing about copyrights, intellectual property or licensing, and refrain from railing on you for saying something completely idiotic.

OP, you should absolutely address this with the client. Diplomatically, of course. If your clients are at all reasonable people, they'll understand.

Cheers!

 

[Surgikill]

I'm going to assume that you know absolutely nothing about copyrights, intellectual property or licensing, and refrain from railing on you for saying something completely idiotic.

OP, you should absolutely address this with the client. Diplomatically, of course. If your clients are at all reasonable people, they'll understand.

Cheers!

So rather than answering my question you just make a jack ass statement. Smooth.

 

[jamesbjenkins]

So rather than answering my question you just make a jack ass statement. Smooth.

So, I take it you weren't being difficult, and in fact really don't know anything about the topic? If so, I offer my apologies. I read your post as being a smarmy sarcastic jab coming from the "how dare you market using the client's likeness and image" section of the photography community that I truly loathe.

Simply put, the photographer owns the image and all rights associated with the image as a unique work of art and intellectual property (as a creative work). The client is afforded whatever rights are laid out in the contract, assuming the photographer has a contract, and a well-written one reviewed by a contract attorney. Typically, the client is provided what's commonly called a "personal use license" which allows the client to reprint or reproduce the images however they like for their own usage and enjoyment. Many professionals include a "don't alter or screw with my pictures in any way" clause to avoid exactly the situation the OP is currently experiencing.

In most cases, redistribution or licensing the image(s) to a third party for commercial use or monetary gain to the client is strictly prohibited (assuming the client is an individual or family, and not a business or commercial entity).

In summary, if the Creative has a well-written contract, the client receives absolutely no rights or privileges not explicitly provided to them in the contract.

 

[robbins.photo]

So rather than answering my question you just make a jack ass statement. Smooth.

Umm, welcome to TPF?