Client Editing Photos

[erphoto]

she removed the images. but now, after raving on how much she loved them and loves them and how fab they were, all the sudden it's, "I edited the images because I wasn't happy with how they turned out."

I can't win.

 

[Big Mike]

she removed the images. but now, after raving on how much she loved them and loves them and how fab they were, all the sudden it's, "I edited the images because I wasn't happy with how they turned out."

I can't win.

This goes back to reply #4, from SpeedTrap. Sometimes it's just not worth it because even though you are in-the-right, you end up with P-ed off clients and bad word of mouth.

As I see it, you have two option;
Do everything you can to 'make this right' and satisfy the client. This could mean a lot of work on your part.
Or...just live & learn and chalk this one up as experience.

 

[Lyncca]

I had someone take off the copyright statement that is at the bottom of some of my images that I was allowing them to use on Facebook. She loaded several with the copyright, then a month or so later, she loaded another that just had a black bar on the bottom of the image where the copyright info was.

I was pretty ticked off, but calmly contacted her and told her that in order to use the "free" facebook pictures, she had to leave the logo on the image if she wanted to use it. I was apologetic about being a tyrant. She seemed to understand ok and apologized. She still refers me, so I guess I was gentle enough with her not to embarrass her (which I think is what causes a lot of clients to act out once they are "caught") and she still talks to me and refers me.

 

[Actor]

I’m not a lawyer, but then I don’t think anyone else who has responded to your original post is a lawyer either; at least no one has identified themselves as such. That said, here’s my two cents.

• You own the copyright.
• You do not own the image, that is, you do not own the copy (or copies) of the image that you gave to your client.

Every contract implicitly assumes that the parties to it will end up in court, where you would be the injured party, i.e., the plaintiff, and the burden of proof (that you have been injured) would be yours. What actions did your client take and which of these injured you?

1. She copied the file from the DVD to her computer. Did this action violate your copyright? No. It’s reasonable use. She had to do it in order to edit the file. Furthermore, she has the right to maintain an archival copy. If you claim "the DVD is the archival copy" then she has the right to make a working copy. If you claim that your copy is the archival copy then you must make arrangements for that copy to be maintained in the event that you go out of business or die. If you cannot prove that you are a reliable archivist then your copy cannot be the archive copy.
2. She altered the image. She edited it. Does this injure you? No. She has the right to alter the image, or rather, her copy of the image. This point goes right to the heart of the copyright vs. ownership issue. You own the copyright. She owns one or more copies. She can do whatever she wants with that copy or copies.
3. She put it on facebook. Is this an injury? Maybe. Is posting on facebook “personal use?” This is the point on which the lawyers will gird their loins and do battle. I think the term "personal use" is terribly vague.

As for the “potentially negative effect on your business” I don’t think you have much of a case. This is based on the perception that the defendant’s alterations degraded your work, a totally subjective judgment. All the defendant’s lawyer has to do is claim that the alterations improved the picture and that’s the end of it. The courts have unequivocally stated that they are not critics. For them to allow artistic criticism in court would be to invite a plethora of frivolous cases.

Your letter to the client should have been written by a lawyer. Your letter makes assertions that are inaccurate from a legal point of view and could be viewed as an attempt to intimidate your client. That cannot help your case.

Another point is that a jury is almost certain to be sympathetic to the defendant. That’s the way juries are in civil cases. They tend to favor the defendant over the plaintiff, the little guy over the big guy, the customer over the businessman. Maybe it's not right but that's reality.

I must end by re-stating that I am not a lawyer. Every opinion I have stated here could be wrong so you really should ask a lawyer.

 

[Actor]

Unfortunately my experience with contracts (not necessarily in photography) is that a customer will tend to exploit any grey area in the wording to their advantage.

That's democracy. That's capitalism. That's free enterprise. That's Darwinism. Survival of the fittest interpreter (or misinterpreter). :lmao:

 

[erphoto]

I’m not a lawyer, but then I don’t think anyone else who has responded to your original post is a lawyer either; at least no one has identified themselves as such. That said, here’s my two cents.

• You own the copyright.
• You do not own the image, that is, you do not own the copy (or copies) of the image that you gave to your client.

Every contract implicitly assumes that the parties to it will end up in court, where you would be the injured party, i.e., the plaintiff, and the burden of proof (that you have been injured) would be yours. What actions did your client take and which of these injured you?

1. She copied the file from the DVD to her computer. Did this action violate your copyright? No. It’s reasonable use. She had to do it in order to edit the file. Furthermore, she has the right to maintain an archival copy. If you claim "the DVD is the archival copy" then she has the right to make a working copy. If you claim that your copy is the archival copy then you must make arrangements for that copy to be maintained in the event that you go out of business or die. If you cannot prove that you are a reliable archivist then your copy cannot be the archive copy.
2. She altered the image. She edited it. Does this injure you? No. She has the right to alter the image, or rather, her copy of the image. This point goes right to the heart of the copyright vs. ownership issue. You own the copyright. She owns one or more copies. She can do whatever she wants with that copy or copies.
3. She put it on facebook. Is this an injury? Maybe. Is posting on facebook “personal use?” This is the point on which the lawyers will gird their loins and do battle. I think the term "personal use" is terribly vague.

As for the “potentially negative effect on your business” I don’t think you have much of a case. This is based on the perception that the defendant’s alterations degraded your work, a totally subjective judgment. All the defendant’s lawyer has to do is claim that the alterations improved the picture and that’s the end of it. The courts have unequivocally stated that they are not critics. For them to allow artistic criticism in court would be to invite a plethora of frivolous cases.

Your letter to the client should have been written by a lawyer. Your letter makes assertions that are inaccurate from a legal point of view and could be viewed as an attempt to intimidate your client. That cannot help your case.

Another point is that a jury is almost certain to be sympathetic to the defendant. That’s the way juries are in civil cases. They tend to favor the defendant over the plaintiff, the little guy over the big guy, the customer over the businessman. Maybe it's not right but that's reality.

I must end by re-stating that I am not a lawyer. Every opinion I have stated here could be wrong so you really should ask a lawyer.

I don't even know where to begin with your lengthy post. First, thanks for taking the time to type that and think it out.

I have no intention of, or implied that I had the intention of, on here, or to her that I was going to take legal action. No way. It's not worth it... She has the right to copy, duplicate and all of that, it's in the contract. I already knew her rights for that. My only question was about editing an image that I took... and adding edits to a picture that I had already artistically altered. I really don't see how this is "legal" seeing as it's akin to taking someone's painting and adding something to it and then displaying it. I don't know and at this point I don't care as far as this case is concerned. I have written it up to "experience" as someone suggested and I'm done worrying about it.

Also, I don't have an issue with anyone posting anything to facebook. I frequently upload to facebook and tag brides who are my friends on there (with the intention of tagging) and usually anyone who does upload the images will put my name, and refer to me. I figure facebook is good for business, whether they refer back to me or not, because someone is going to ask them who did their pictures and my name is going to come up eventually.

Again, let me reiterate that I am NOT even thinking about pursuing any sort of legal action and the idea is ludicrous. Thanks for all the information though, I really appreciate it.

 

[Christie Photo]

I think a little more 'sugar coating' would be in order. Right from the first sentence, it sets a bad tone and I cringed while reading it.

Yeah... I got that too. But I don't think this is a time for "sugar coating."

It's nothing personal. Don't bring emotions into it. Speak absolutely.

No "probablys," or presumptions about why they did it. Absolutely no attacks on their abilities or taste. No hopes that they understand. Definitely no smiley faces.

Simply, "Delete altered files and don't do it again."

Now, if they're are friends or even acquaintances, I suggest you give them a call to explain.

-Pete

 

[epp_b]

How about if you write this stuff in language they can easily understand. It works for me...

I think an easier way to write it would be: here's what can do. If it's not on here, you can't do it. You can't possibly predict future technology that may enable people to do new things.

I have to agree, this is a lose-lose situation for you. Either you risk the negative reflection on you as the photographer for cheesy-looking edits or you risk an unhappy client that may spread negative and/or false information about you.

Actor, the problem is that she altered them and posted those altered copies. This qualifies as a "derivative work", which is not applicable for a fair use defense.

 

[Actor]

Actor, the problem is that she altered them and posted those altered copies. This qualifies as a "derivative work", which is not applicable for a fair use defense.

Correct. But she also included the words "personal use" in her contract. Does "personal use" include the right to post on-line? That's one for the lawyers to haggle over.

 

[misol]

Ok, I admit to not having read through that all, but I just dont have that kiind of time

I have the release that spells it out but I also started giving a sheet (and putting it on the CD) that gives printing "tips". It tells them tips about cropping for different sizes, good places to print and why they should stick with good labs, types of paper and then reminds them NOT to edit my work. It explains why too. I havent gotten any actual feed back but I think its a good reminder and I think over all it should help with the situation.