Ethics again...

[bism]

Ok, so here is another question about photography ethics.

I am paid to travel across country, rent equipment/props/etc, hire models, and do a shoot for a mag ad. The guy pays all the costs and for the one image which is used in the mag.

I still have 500+ images. Are those mine? :? I have another gig and I want to use some of the images I took on that shoot. Can I use some of the images that the other guy essentially paid for?

Thanks for any input.

 

[motcon]

they belong to you unless you signed over copyright before or after the shoot.


now that you own them, normal rules apply: you will need model releases for anything with an identifiable person, private property, etc.

 

[bism]

Great, you have been a big help....again .



thanks

 

[metroshane]

Let's take this from another angle since you actually asked about ethics, not legallities.

Motcon is right that you can do whatever you like, even resale them, as long as you have releases....BUT we're talking about ethics here. The real question is do you ever want to work again? While this is legal, the hiring company has hired you on good faith and I'm sure they assume you won't go out and sell the other pics. For example, say I'm doing a cologne ad and I hire you to take some pics of some models. Well if you go out and resale those pics and they are published before I get my ad campaign finalized...them I'm really pissed b/c my art director's idea looks stolen and unoriginal. It could ruin my whole campaign. So I will never hire you and no one I know will ever hire you again.

Second scenerio. Be really careful that the release spells out what you want to do with the pics. For example, say I hire you to take pics of Jerry Sienfeld for a mastercard campaign. If you then go out and sell the pics of Jerry for a Summer's Eve douche campaign...then you're probably going to get sued...by Jerry.

So the ethical stance would be to only use the pics in a portfolio or book project. Only use them after the intended purpose has been completely fulfilled.

 

[urameatball]

metro's right

unless it something really vague and none of the objects in the picture can be idenfitied with anything else, you shouldn't reuse the photos.

A way around it is to ask the original model(s) and company to see whether they will allow such and such pic to be used for such and such purposes.

 

[bism]

oh great, so back to splitting hairs again.

Let me further explain the situation a bit. The original image has already been printed and is been out for a few months now. They plan to reprint it but in the same publications (which are some trade magazines)

While we were on this shoot we took shots in a few different locations and luckily the image I want to use on this new ad has only slight resemblance to the one that is already printed.

Another factor is this is not a product shot nor does it contain a recognizable face. It is fairly a naturalistic setting.

I originally thought "no way" as far as reusing the picts the other guy paid for but unfortunately I used one of those picts in the comp and the client really liked it. I suppose I am going to end up asking the original guy if it would be ok with him because "officially" he has no control over what I use them for.


Thanks again for any input

 

[motcon]

erm, everyone said basically exactly what i said, but claimed that they didn't...


shooting Jerry would require a model release to be used, as i stated.

shooting recognizable private property would need a release to be used, as i stated.

there's nothing unethical in using what you legally own.

 

[metroshane]

motcon, I'm sorry you feel slighted and aren't getting your due credit...but I think my post was completely different...even acknowledging what you said and pointing out the difference.

I have the legal right to post naked pictures of the pope on an adult website if I took them...but is doesn't make it ethical or classy. I can shoot upskirt shots of your mom, but that's pretty unethical too. I have the legal right to keep ten bucks I see someone drop...but that's pretty low. That attitude is very smart but not wise. You can't operate in a vacuum.

Bism, the law and ethics are about splitting hairs, so if you don't appreciate the detail I'll refrain from responding to your posts.

 

[motcon]

motcon, I'm sorry you feel slighted and aren't getting your due credit...but I think my post was completely different...even acknowledging what you said and pointing out the difference.

I have the legal right to post naked pictures of the pope on an adult website if I took them...but is doesn't make it ethical or classy. I can shoot upskirt shots of your mom, but that's pretty unethical too. I have the legal right to keep ten bucks I see someone drop...but that's pretty low. That attitude is very smart but not wise. You can't operate in a vacuum.

Bism, the law and ethics are about splitting hairs, so if you don't appreciate the detail I'll refrain from responding to your posts.

erm, i don't want credit, sir. clarity would be nice. that said, no one cares what your ethics are, just as no one cares about mine.

unethical or not, i'd find nude pics of the pope amusing. legally? need a model release.

if you are going to stoop so low as to make 'mom' comments, you may want to be sure said 'moms' are still alive. won't make a nice shot otherwise.

 

[metroshane]

unethical or not, i'd find nude pics of the pope amusing. legally? need a model release.

Not if I post them in an editorial.

that said, no one cares what your ethics are, just as no one cares about mine.

I'm sorry but I believe the title of the thread is ethics not legalities. And besides my clients care a lot about my ethics.

if you are going to stoop so low as to make 'mom' comments, you may want to be sure said 'moms' are still alive. won't make a nice shot otherwise.

Not every sentence or statement that includes the phrase "your mom" is some sort of diss. We aren't on the playground and we weren't having a dissing competition...it was an example of an unethical act. I simply used your mom b/c you wouldn't care if I was shooting upskirts of a stranger.

 

[motcon]

Ok, so here is another question about photography ethics.

I am paid to travel across country, rent equipment/props/etc, hire models, and do a shoot for a mag ad. The guy pays all the costs and for the one image which is used in the mag.

I still have 500+ images. Are those mine? :? I have another gig and I want to use some of the images I took on that shoot. Can I use some of the images that the other guy essentially paid for?

Thanks for any input.

this isn't tough english, metro. despite the word 'ethics', the question is a legal one, for if it WERE an ethical question, could he not figure that out for himself? has he not his own set of ethics? it also appears to me that the third post, made by the original poster, acknowledged the information that i gave, not dismissed it as irrelevant.


as far as the 'mom' comment; why would i care what my mom does on her free time? she's a human, too. she has the right to live.

i'm done with this thread; it's been answered.

 

[bism]

Well.......thanks to all those who replied...I didn’t expect all the feistiness but I am glad there are things that people aren’t completely passive about.

To further elaborate, the question was about whether it was “OK” in that I wont be getting into any legal trouble or otherwise. Ethically I personally wouldn’t resell an image that presented itself as a copy or had significant similarities to something I had sold to someone else.

I obviously don’t want to “off” any of my clients…I was referring to the fact that “client one” had essentially paid for the image (or set up the means for me to take the image). The images themselves have very little in common.

Thanks again for those involved, I will quietly duck out now as my question has been thoroughly answered.

 

[photobug]

Coming late to the party, but were these pics taken by you as a contractor, or by you as a "work for hire" project?

If you were a contractor, you own the copyright & can do whatever you like with them, assuming the appropriate releases.

If it was "work for hire" the first client owns the copyright to any pics you took while on that project.

You have to decide what's ethical. We can express opinions, but they'd most likely differ greatly amongst us probably wouldn't match your own sense of "ethical."

Jim

 

[metroshane]

Good point about work for hire. My policy is not to work for hire. What that means to me is that they are just trying to pay you as less as possible. If they do want work for hire, it's oh let's say a thousand an hour? How's that sound?