Appropriate use of photos?

[Braineack]

Have you even asked them if you wouldn't mind removing the picture of your son yet?

A simple: Hey, we appreciate the picture you took and understand you want to show off your work and signed a release that allowed you to do this, but we'd feel a little better if you could remove the picture you took of our son off FB. It's not you, it's me.

 

[Tee]

I don't photograph minors so I'm not entirely sure about this but...if the son was 17 wouldn't the parent need to sign a model release?

 

[KmH]

The parent signed a model release that was part of the contract.
This is a model release:

1. This agreement constitutes an order for portraiture services, including the taking of pictures as agreed to by both parties: (photographer) and Contracting Party (Client). Unless otherwise specified, it is understood that any and all rights to proofs, final or sample prints,thereof shall remain the property of (photographer) and may be used for advertising, display or any other purpose thought proper by (photographer).

 

[orljustin]

The parent signed a model release that was part of the contract.
This is a model release:

1. This agreement constitutes an order for portraiture services, including the taking of pictures as agreed to by both parties: (photographer) and Contracting Party (Client). Unless otherwise specified, it is understood that any and all rights to proofs, final or sample prints,thereof shall remain the property of (photographer) and may be used for advertising, display or any other purpose thought proper by (photographer).

If we're going to be particular, that specifically refers to 'prints'. I don't see any release for digital advertising.

 

[Braineack]

It really doesn't, but it doesn't help the entire thing was written grammatically incorrect.

The first sentence specifically mentions it is agreed the service is for "taking of pictures".

The second sentence says all proofs, and prints, are property of the photographer and may be used in advertising or display or any other purpose.

There is no definition that says a proof, final print, or sample print cannot be digital or, to that matter, what exactly a proof, final print, or sample print is. I'd argue a proof is a digital copy of the picture.

 

[pixmedic]

"What are peoples thought? this photographer posted every photo they took on facebook and tagged him without letting us know they were going up or without any input from my son about photos he did not like. I know that we signed this contract - but is this contract even appropriate, and can a photograher, no matter the contract, actually claim all rights to do whatever they want whenever they want, and they are the only opinion on what's "proper"? "

Unfirtunately, many 'pros', including a lot here, will include legal wording like that to use the images of your family, that you paid to have taken, as advertising fodder for their business. Next time, you'll have to shop harder for a photographer that respects your desires, or negotiate those bits out of the contract.

It's not something I would do without a separate model release for advertising and a heavily discounted rate as compensation. Totally optional.

well, many photographers, including a lot here, offer different pricing depending on what level of ownership you want of the photos taken.
I believe this has been covered before, but I will try again. I will give you an example based on what WE do.

someone comes to us and wants portraits taken. great.
there are two prices. one price, a more expensive option, that says we do not use their photos in any way for advertising, digital or otherwise.
the other price, obviously cheaper, says that in exchange for this discounted rate, we get the rights to use photos of our choosing for our portfolio and advertising.
the client then gets to choose which option they wish to go with. if they CHOOSE the cheaper option after all of this is explained to them, and sign the contract accepting the terms of that option, then they have no right to complain later. it is not about "legalese", it is about people not reading what they are signing until long after the fact, or not asking about things they dont understand.
this is largely not the fault of the photographer, but rather, the client.

It really is such a simple concept.
if you do not like the terms the photographer is offering, don't use that photographer.
But, you wont KNOW what the terms of the photographer are unless you READ the contract.
if you don't understand something...ASK. if they wont explain it so you DO understand....don't use that photographer.
i don't understand why people blame the photographers for a clients refusal to do even the smallest amount of reading and/or research before spending their money.

 

[KmH]

The parent signed a model release that was part of the contract.
This is a model release:

1. This agreement constitutes an order for portraiture services, including the taking of pictures as agreed to by both parties: (photographer) and Contracting Party (Client). Unless otherwise specified, it is understood that any and all rights to proofs, final or sample prints,thereof shall remain the property of (photographer) and may be used for advertising, display or any other purpose thought proper by (photographer).

If we're going to be particular, that specifically refers to 'prints'. I don't see any release for digital advertising.

Advertising is advertising, digital or otherwise and is followed by - or any other purpose thought proper by (photographer).

 

[orljustin]

The parent signed a model release that was part of the contract.
This is a model release:

If we're going to be particular, that specifically refers to 'prints'. I don't see any release for digital advertising.

Advertising is advertising, digital or otherwise and is followed by - or any other purpose thought proper by (photographer).

No, you missed the point that the contract only speaks of the use of 'prints' . 'Prints' are obviously something printed and are not digital images.

 

[pixmedic]

If we're going to be particular, that specifically refers to 'prints'. I don't see any release for digital advertising.

Advertising is advertising, digital or otherwise and is followed by - or any other purpose thought proper by (photographer).

No, you missed the point that the contract only speaks of the use of 'prints' . 'Prints' are obviously something printed and are not digital images.

actually, YOU missed the part where it says proofs. i am pretty sure that it would not be difficult to convince any judge that a "proof" can certainly be digital.
and according to the contract, the proofs OR prints, may be used for advertising. if the OP showed the clients their pictures as a digital file for approval, that makes the digital file "proofs", and is covered under that contract.

PROOF - A sample image intended to be used for the purpose of selecting a final image. this can be digital, OR physical.

 

[Rob99]

It's a pretty standard photography contract.

It's been said already but the lesson here is never sign a contract of any type useless you read and understand it first.

 

[Steve5D]

The only thing that I find unusual about this is that the guy tagged the people in the photos he uploaded to Facebook. I'll go out on a limb and guess that the actual identity of the person pictured adds nothing to the photographic value of the picture...

 

[Overread]

The only thing that I find unusual about this is that the guy tagged the people in the photos he uploaded to Facebook. I'll go out on a limb and guess that the actual identity of the person pictured adds nothing to the photographic value of the picture...

It's likely either:

1) Tagging is just what you do on facebook so they did it because its the norm

2) It's a social networking move - tagging them gives a prompt to the person so they are reminded of the photographers website. It also makes the company page more friendly feeling and might well help encourage more custom (because you can be certain that just as there are people who specifically do not want to be displayed - there are those who will be more than proud to be displayed on the "professional photographers website!")

 

[Braineack]

Have you even asked them if you wouldn't mind removing the picture of your son yet?

A simple: Hey, we appreciate the picture you took and understand you want to show off your work and signed a release that allowed you to do this, but we'd feel a little better if you could remove the picture you took of our son off FB. It's not you, it's me.

oh good idea, why not ask him nicely to remove it?

 

[photograpix]

I would be flattered if he/she uses my picture(s) to advertise his/her work. And he did mentioned it that it will be posted on Facebook unless he/she uses it to posted in Facebook like "please sponsor this child"