Erotic nude shoot: client wants unprocessed images to edit himself

[tirediron]

It's rude because I'm paying you to take my photo, not to be your personal advertising model, and you want to charge higher than normal rates for "paperwork". If you want to showcase your work, go shoot some landscapes or hire some models who want to do commercial work.

Call me rude then. All of my contracts have a codicil which states that I retain copyright and the right to use all images for self-promotion, professional accreditation, etc. I think you'll find it's pretty standard.

 

[unpopular]

Yeah. Even my contracts included this provision, and anyone who knows me knows how I feel about exclusive copyright holdings.

 

[amolitor]

I'm fascinated by this use of the word "rude". It appears to mean "offering me a contract which is not to my liking"?

If you think that constitutes "rudeness" you must spend most of your life being annoyed.

 

[unpopular]

... or violating contracts.

 

[orljustin]

You can hold copyright all you like. I'm still not patronizing a photographer who feels the need to use a client as their advertising fodder as a standard. I'll pay an appropriate sitting fee for digital images. I might even buy prints. But you don't get to use me as your next facebook post.

Now, it might be different, if, after the fact, you came back and said "Hey, I have this one really amazing image - I'd like to use it in my portfolio. Would that be ok?" And then I might agree. But I'm not giving you cart blanche to take anything you like from our session for your own use.

 

[sm4him]

You can hold copyright all you like. I'm still not patronizing a photographer who feels the need to use a client as their advertising fodder as a standard. I'll pay an appropriate sitting fee for digital images. I might even buy prints. But you don't get to use me as your next facebook post.

Now, it might be different, if, after the fact, you came back and said "Hey, I have this one really amazing image - I'd like to use it in my portfolio. Would that be ok?" And then I might agree. But I'm not giving you cart blanche to take anything you like from our session for your own use.

Again, HuH?? :scratch:

If I hold the copyright--which you admit that I would, and you have "no problem with"--then it is NOT yours to GIVE me "carte blanche" to use MY photo for MY own use. Rather, the price I charge you gives YOu the rights I agree to. So, if you would like to have the right to keep ME from using my OWN photo...yeah, that's gonna cost you extra.

EDIT: OP, I apologize for the hijack. I'm probably gonna have to stop reading this thread to keep from hijacking it again.

 

[jamesbjenkins]

It's rude because I'm paying you to take my photo, not to be your personal advertising model, and you want to charge higher than normal rates for "paperwork". If you want to showcase your work, go shoot some landscapes or hire some models who want to do commercial work.

That's pretty much the most ridiculous thing I've read on here. EVERY creative professional I know (photog, graphic design, architect, etc.) uses their past successes to advertise for future clients. It's general practice and a basic fundamental of marketing.

If you want to deprive a photographer of the ability to showcase his/her work, that's fine. But you can damn well expect to pay for that privilege.

 

[jamesbjenkins]

You can hold copyright all you like. I'm still not patronizing a photographer who feels the need to use a client as their advertising fodder as a standard. I'll pay an appropriate sitting fee for digital images. I might even buy prints. But you don't get to use me as your next facebook post.

Now, it might be different, if, after the fact, you came back and said "Hey, I have this one really amazing image - I'd like to use it in my portfolio. Would that be ok?" And then I might agree. But I'm not giving you cart blanche to take anything you like from our session for your own use.

I'm not sure your choice of words or your aggressive tone suggest you have any desire to talk about this reasonably. You're just pecking out irritated sounding talking points.

Simple fact is, if I hold the copyright to the images I produce for you, I don't need your permission to use them for marketing purposes. Now, it's common courtesy to alert a client of the PRIVILEGE of being featured in a marketing piece, but certainly not required.

So, you can drop the attitude and accept the norms of the industry, or just hire a pushover photog who values a few bucks more than their marketing freedom.

OP: sorry for the hijack. I couldn't let this nonsense go uncorrected.

 

[orljustin]

If I hold the copyright--which you admit that I would, and you have "no problem with"--then it is NOT yours to GIVE me "carte blanche" to use MY photo for MY own use. Rather, the price I charge you gives YOu the rights I agree to. So, if you would like to have the right to keep ME from using my OWN photo...yeah, that's gonna cost you extra.

If you want to use my likeness to advertise your business, you'll pay me.

Just because you hold copyright does not mean you can do what you like with the images. For instance, I can license images exclusively to someone, where I obviously still hold the copyright, but can't use them for promotion, since they have exclusive rights.

 

[orljustin]

Simple fact is, if I hold the copyright to the images I produce for you, I don't need your permission to use them for marketing purposes. Now, it's common courtesy to alert a client of the PRIVILEGE of being featured in a marketing piece, but certainly not required.

If you ever wonder why you aren't getting the level of business you think you deserve, you now know. "Privilege", lol. Copyright certainly doesn't mean you have the right to use my likeness in your advertising. You're confusing copyright with contract terms.

 

[jamesbjenkins]

Generally speaking, you are 100% incorrect. As a creative, I dictate to the client the rights they have with the image under my contract.

If they want privileges that differ from my contract, they can pay for them. And, FYI an "exclusive" license just means that I agree not to license the image(s) to anyone else. It means nothing towards what I can use them for myself.

You might want to read up on copyright and licensing laws before you post more patently false statements.

 

[amolitor]

I still don't see why it's "rude".

 

[The_Traveler]

This is a silly argument between both sides who want to claim a right or privilege that doesn't exist in law until a contract is signed.
There is no 'right' to use the work you create, just a standard practice enforced by contract and, in the absence of written contract, by copyright law.
There is no right to pay for a service and to insist that the service product be the payor's exclusive property unless there is a specific arrangement reinforced by contract.

Photographers' standard practice is to retain copyright ownership in return for a discounted rate.

If the payor does not want that standard practice, he or she is certainly free to contract for a work for hire or go to a different photographer.
There's no moral/ethical issue here.

The copyright law exists to clear up any ambiguity of ownership in favor of the creator as a sensible default - in the US and other countries.

 

[rokvi]

I still don't see why it's "rude".

[/QUOTE]

That's pretty rude. It isn't my job to provide you with advertising fodder. If you want to promote your business so bad, hire some models and shoot them.
[/QUOTE]

You are the one who said it was rude. A "signed" contract is a contract either way. If you sign a contract saying that the photog has a right to use those images as he sees fit, then you are giving him the right to use them. If not. Don't sign! Also a lot of clients don't actually mind if their images are on a professional site. As for the reason why a photographer uses them is because using a payed model is just that. Any one can pay some models, and have a web page full of them. A happy client is also just that, and can be used as such. Proof that the photog has happy customers.

 

[manaheim]

Agree with Traveller's points 100%.

On rudeness... To the person who posed that concept, something to consider: most clients want to see that you have the actual situational experience for any given type of shoot. Hiring a model (or anything like it) does not exactly reflect that. Losing the rights to showcase your work then becomes very painful for the photographer, thus the various positions to that effect.

I understand where you're coming from... It's just not anywhere near practical to think that way until the market expectations change.