Lady asked me to remove her photo from my site?

[astroNikon]

I wonder how many times she's used it on facebook, instagram, or even some local publication, etc.

 

[Big Mike]

I see that the decision to take it down, has already been made. I don't disagree with that, it's a tough spot to be in.

But I would hope that you used this as an opportunity to educate the client....Letting her know that you didn't have to take it down just because she asked. You hold the rights to the image and you make the call.

 

[Braineack]

See, if this was me, I'd go out of my way to put that same image on a billboard that you know she'll see...

 

[table1349]

Yeah, I want to stand my ground and say no... but on the other hand, she's actually a somewhat influential figure in the theatre community (which I'm trying to break into), so it's probably not worth the trouble.

Which is exactly why I would not take it down. You have now set a precedent with an "Influential figure" in the market you want to enter. Those in that market will now expect the same treatment as you gave her. Will they choose to ask, that is unknown, but if they do you now have no argument but to bow to their wishes.

 

[Gary A.]

Yeah, I want to stand my ground and say no... but on the other hand, she's actually a somewhat influential figure in the theatre community (which I'm trying to break into), so it's probably not worth the trouble.

Which is exactly why I would not take it down. You have now set a precedent with an "Influential figure" in the market you want to enter. Those in that market will now expect the same treatment as you gave her. Will they choose to ask, that is unknown, but if they do you now have no argument but to bow to their wishes.

It is called 'retention'. I don't think honoring a simple request which doesn't cost a dime, nor will the request, (most likely), cost him any future customers. Potentially, leaving the image up, will have an adverse effect upon attracting new customers.

People believe they have a God given right to their likeness. It doesn't matter what the contract states or where the image is captured (public) ... they feel it is their image and they should be able to decide the future of their image. By not taking it down, you are pissing off the client, who will now go out and badmouth DGM Photography to other potential clients ... et cetera. In a week, DGM Photography will be riding a rail out of town covered in tar and feathers. Why ... just so he can make a point that his will and contract is stronger than her will and desires. This is business, who gives a rat's about the size of one's will in business.

Derrel is right, "Pick your battles carefully."

 

[DGMPhotography]

Yeah, I did make sure to educate her on the fact that I DO have the right to her photo, but decided to take it down.

Like I said, my business isn't successful enough yet to make enemies.

 

[smoke665]

Derrel is right, "Pick your battles carefully."

Good business practices unfortunately dictate biting your tongue sometimes and giving a little to gain more.

 

[limr]

And not for nothing, but business isn't always about sticking strictly to the letter of the contract and shoving it down the client's throat. Customer service and respecting clients is a part of the business as well. I understand the reasons why someone might want to stand their ground and keep the photo up, but I'm quite frankly disappointed in the suggestion that amounted to "Screw her, make her even more visible just out of spite!"

She may not have the legal right to insist on her image being removed from promotion materials, but as long as she's not being a jerk about the request, and it's not going to make a difference in terms of promoting the business, why not just accommodate her? (OP, I know you already did - that was a rhetorical question.) It's like a restaurant who will comp one meal, knowing it will satisfy an annoyed customer and increase the likelihood that those same customers will keep coming back and paying for many more meals than the one they complained about.

 

[vintagesnaps]

And you never know when/where you may run into someone again years down the road... I think your reputation depends a good bit on how you treat people.

If you try to be gracious and accommodating (within reason) while still providing guidelines and info. on usage etc. I find it can work to give a reminder, and figure out how to work something out for whatever circumstances.

Might be a good idea to look at the contract/info. on your website and clarify what is meant by promotional use. I think there may be more concern by people because of social media etc. - they can't be sure where their photo may be posted or shared or where it may end up or how it may be used.

(edit - If in the future someone asks about promotional use and pricing and it's different than what this woman may have told them, explain how procedures and prices are periodically updated and have changed since she had her portrait done.)

 

[DGMPhotography]

Unfortunately... I have a juicy update for you all.

This was her response when I said I would take it down, but that I do - in fact- own the photo.

Hey CLIENT:

It's good to hear from you - thanks for your email! I hope all is well.

While I do retain the legal right to use any of our photos for promotional purposes, I don't mind taking it down for you since you asked.

Please let me know if there is anything else I can do for you.

Best wishes,

Daryll Morgan | Photographer
www.daryllmorgan.com

-
-
-


Hi Daryll,

Thank you for understanding.

THEATRE, one of the most hospitable theatres in the area, gives neophytes in every nook and cranny of the business an opportunity to learn and grow, including their own volunteer board and staff. I believe that THEATRE leadership naively mislead you as you navigate the ropes on the business end of your blossoming photography company. And I have addressed this issue with the THEATRE board.

THEATRE Theatre, "tagline" has no right to usurp the actor's ownership of his image, his stock-in-trade. I realize that THEATRE is not an AEA house, yet to put things in perspective, The Actors Equity Association (Article 52 in the AEA Rule Book) puts it this way:

(F) The Producer must obtain the Actor's prior written authorization before the Actor's picture may be used in conjunction with a commercial product and said authorization must specify the commercial product involved.


(1) If the Actor consents to the use of Actor's name, voice, or photographic likeness, as aforesaid, Actor shall be paid not less than $300 for said use. Actors called to a picture call for the purpose described above, whether said call is at the theatre or elsewhere, shall be paid not less than $200 per hour for said call, but shall be paid no additional sums for the use of pictures taken during said call. (See Rule 39(D)(1)(c) where still photos are utilized to make a commercial.)


(2) This requirement shall not apply to the so-called institutional ads similar in type to the department store ads on file at the offices of Equity and the League.


You can find the complete Article 52. PHOTOGRAPHS, PUBLICITY AND PROMOTION here: http://www.actorsequity.org/docs/rulebooks/Production_Rulebook_League_11-15.pdf



The phrase "In conjunction with a commercial product" includes the "product" in a photographer's business. Most actors in RVA are more than happy to attend photo calls without financial compensation in exchange for the theatre company publicity that will entice audiences to see our work. When you see popular RVA Theatre headshot photographers NAMES, NAMES, NAMES, and others use a person's headshot in publicity for their own photography work, they use headshots for which they were contracted by and with permission from the actor.

I appreciate your kind response to my request, Daryll, and will enjoy following the growth and success of your photography business.

Best wishes,
~ CLIENT




Rather condescending, if you ask me.

 

[480sparky]

Wait.. What?!?

They expect you to abide by a third party's rules? When did you agree to that?

 

[Gary A.]

Then why did she sign the contract? I think your contract may prevail in a court of law. Next time you shoot an actor, add some verbiage that "this contract supersedes any existing personal/association/guild/union agreements, contracts and understandings."

 

[table1349]

Unfortunately... I have a juicy update for you all.

This was her response when I said I would take it down, but that I do - in fact- own the photo.

Hey CLIENT:

It's good to hear from you - thanks for your email! I hope all is well.

While I do retain the legal right to use any of our photos for promotional purposes, I don't mind taking it down for you since you asked.

Please let me know if there is anything else I can do for you.

Best wishes,

Daryll Morgan | Photographer
www.daryllmorgan.com

-
-
-


Hi Daryll,

Thank you for understanding.

THEATRE, one of the most hospitable theatres in the area, gives neophytes in every nook and cranny of the business an opportunity to learn and grow, including their own volunteer board and staff. I believe that THEATRE leadership naively mislead you as you navigate the ropes on the business end of your blossoming photography company. And I have addressed this issue with the THEATRE board.

THEATRE Theatre, "tagline" has no right to usurp the actor's ownership of his image, his stock-in-trade. I realize that THEATRE is not an AEA house, yet to put things in perspective, The Actors Equity Association (Article 52 in the AEA Rule Book) puts it this way:

(F) The Producer must obtain the Actor's prior written authorization before the Actor's picture may be used in conjunction with a commercial product and said authorization must specify the commercial product involved.


(1) If the Actor consents to the use of Actor's name, voice, or photographic likeness, as aforesaid, Actor shall be paid not less than $300 for said use. Actors called to a picture call for the purpose described above, whether said call is at the theatre or elsewhere, shall be paid not less than $200 per hour for said call, but shall be paid no additional sums for the use of pictures taken during said call. (See Rule 39(D)(1)(c) where still photos are utilized to make a commercial.)


(2) This requirement shall not apply to the so-called institutional ads similar in type to the department store ads on file at the offices of Equity and the League.


You can find the complete Article 52. PHOTOGRAPHS, PUBLICITY AND PROMOTION here: http://www.actorsequity.org/docs/rulebooks/Production_Rulebook_League_11-15.pdf



The phrase "In conjunction with a commercial product" includes the "product" in a photographer's business. Most actors in RVA are more than happy to attend photo calls without financial compensation in exchange for the theatre company publicity that will entice audiences to see our work. When you see popular RVA Theatre headshot photographers NAMES, NAMES, NAMES, and others use a person's headshot in publicity for their own photography work, they use headshots for which they were contracted by and with permission from the actor.

I appreciate your kind response to my request, Daryll, and will enjoy following the growth and success of your photography business.

Best wishes,
~ CLIENT




Rather condescending, if you ask me.

Exactly the kind of reason for my two replies:
Lady asked me to remove her photo from my site?
Lady asked me to remove her photo from my site?

You have set a precedent to abide by their so called rules.

If it was I in that position I would immediately reply explaining that
1. What you did, was done out of kindness.
2. That their guild and it's rules are totally meaningless to you and your profession.
3. She signed a legally binding contract wherein she agreed that you as legal copyright holder could at your discretion use them for advertising purposes.
4. If any image taken by you is used in any manner other than for personal, non professional/promotional use you as copyright holder will purse the matter without just compensation.

 

[DGMPhotography]

Exactly the kind of reason for my two replies:
Lady asked me to remove her photo from my site?
Lady asked me to remove her photo from my site?

You have set a precedent to abide by their so called rules.

Not necessarily. I'm talking with the theatre, and we're going to make sure from here out that the actors know before they accept a role that their likeness can be used by me and the theatre indefinitely. I was under the impression the theatre was already communicating this, but it seems that wasn't the case.

 

[480sparky]

Then why did she sign the contract? I think your contract may prevail in a court of law. Next time you shoot an actor, add some verbiage that "this contract supersedes any existing personal/association/guild/union agreements, contracts and understandings."

Why complicate a contract with, what seems to me, something that's unnecessary? Any agreement between the the OPs client and a third party does not extend to the OP and his client.